nisaba
I've been spending a little time with this deck, and I've noticed something. We're all used to Fools doing their stuff close to cliff-edges, and in some decks the Hanged Man, too, may be dangling over or near a chasm. But has anyone really *looked* at this deck? There are an inordinate number of cards taking place on or near cliffs.
In the Major Arcana we have the Fool, Magician, Wheel, Hanged Man, Death, Temperance, Star, Moon and last but not least the Sun. In the minors we have the Pages of Wands, Swords and Cups, and hte Knights of Pentacles and Wands.
Now, in addition to the Fool and Hanged Man, I can sorta understand the Magician, the Wheel, Death and maybe the Moon playing near cliffs, after all, in all of them we are dealing with fine lines of one kind or another. But Temperance? the Star? The Sun? The courts? (and why them - why not other Court cards?)
Now, most of us know that the Visconti in its different forms is a reconstructed deck - many of the images did not make it down the centuries to us. I'm frankly not sure how many of the cliff images are originals, and how many of them are reconstructs (in which case we can dismiss the historical significance). But if they or a number of them are from the originals, what does that tell us about how understanding of the Tarot has changed?
Off-forum, I've been indulging in quite a detailed exchange with someone about these cards, and I managed to talk him out of hte popular idea that when Bembo painted them, they were just a playing deck. The Minors certainly, but the Majors have no way of being valued in a system that might be gambling-based. could it be that they were always significant mystical archetypes, and were attached to a gaming-deck to be overlooked, to be less targetted by the harsh churches of hee day? And point two: if this is an original prototype deck and did not arise from a pre-existing Tarot culture, why are the numberings of the Majors pretty much as we know them today - why haven't they been changed around and experimented with, as you'd expect to follow a prototype?
Thoughts?
In the Major Arcana we have the Fool, Magician, Wheel, Hanged Man, Death, Temperance, Star, Moon and last but not least the Sun. In the minors we have the Pages of Wands, Swords and Cups, and hte Knights of Pentacles and Wands.
Now, in addition to the Fool and Hanged Man, I can sorta understand the Magician, the Wheel, Death and maybe the Moon playing near cliffs, after all, in all of them we are dealing with fine lines of one kind or another. But Temperance? the Star? The Sun? The courts? (and why them - why not other Court cards?)
Now, most of us know that the Visconti in its different forms is a reconstructed deck - many of the images did not make it down the centuries to us. I'm frankly not sure how many of the cliff images are originals, and how many of them are reconstructs (in which case we can dismiss the historical significance). But if they or a number of them are from the originals, what does that tell us about how understanding of the Tarot has changed?
Off-forum, I've been indulging in quite a detailed exchange with someone about these cards, and I managed to talk him out of hte popular idea that when Bembo painted them, they were just a playing deck. The Minors certainly, but the Majors have no way of being valued in a system that might be gambling-based. could it be that they were always significant mystical archetypes, and were attached to a gaming-deck to be overlooked, to be less targetted by the harsh churches of hee day? And point two: if this is an original prototype deck and did not arise from a pre-existing Tarot culture, why are the numberings of the Majors pretty much as we know them today - why haven't they been changed around and experimented with, as you'd expect to follow a prototype?
Thoughts?