catlin
Oh, catboxer, how dare you! This deck is another must-have for me!
XV Le Diable
Diana
edited
jmd
Diana, I too have found it highly interesting that, at least on the Marteau/Grimaud version of this card, the Devil appears to be holding the blade of a sword. This is not, however, the case with most Marseilles versions. Even in the colouration of the Grimaud deck, one can recognise what appears to be flames (blue as the wings are) arising from the top of this instrument.
In other decks, it seems much more that it is a torch of some type which is held, and in the 1650 Noblet version (attached), a forked 'wand' or staff.
In each of these decks, it also seems that the pedastal upon which it stands is 'clearly' (at least to my eyes) an anvil. What is therefore also interesting is the consideration of the previous card's name with this aspect of the card, for to 'temper', in its full sense, one required an anvil. Yet this also lead to the craft very much 'stolen' (or divinely given) by the gods - Hephaestus, from whom Prometheus stole the Fire to give humanity (incidentally, some of you may by highly interested in obtaining a copy of Roger Sworder's Mining, metallurgy and the meaning of life, Quakers Hill Press, Sydney, 1995 - isbn 0 646 22836 6). In one aspect, both Hephaestus's anvil and the torched light are here represented.
Another aspect of the torch - as opposed to the lantern of VIIII the Hermit - is that underground chambers and caves were often investigated with such poor lighting instruments.
In the 18th book of Homer's Iliad, to return to the previous train of thought, it is mentioned that Haphaestus had maidservants who assisted him in his movements. It is worthy to note that, unlike the ambiguity (which I prefer) occuring in most Marseilles decks, the Noblet tied 'creatures' are clearly both female - in addition to one of the feet of the central figure appearing deformed, making it lame, as Hephaestus was!
With regards to the triple nipples, it was commonly believed that women who had an extra nipple (or two) were 'witches' (in the mediaeval church sense of this word) in league with the Devil. The additional nipple(s) there for suckling by the beast. When I first noticed it on the Conver deck I obtained a number of years ago, there was a moment of instant recognition that this was both appropriate and highly significant. It certainly indicates that those who are bound to the Devil's anvil are also feeding it.
But enough for now...
Attached, as mentioned above, is the (restored) 1650 Noblet version.
In other decks, it seems much more that it is a torch of some type which is held, and in the 1650 Noblet version (attached), a forked 'wand' or staff.
In each of these decks, it also seems that the pedastal upon which it stands is 'clearly' (at least to my eyes) an anvil. What is therefore also interesting is the consideration of the previous card's name with this aspect of the card, for to 'temper', in its full sense, one required an anvil. Yet this also lead to the craft very much 'stolen' (or divinely given) by the gods - Hephaestus, from whom Prometheus stole the Fire to give humanity (incidentally, some of you may by highly interested in obtaining a copy of Roger Sworder's Mining, metallurgy and the meaning of life, Quakers Hill Press, Sydney, 1995 - isbn 0 646 22836 6). In one aspect, both Hephaestus's anvil and the torched light are here represented.
Another aspect of the torch - as opposed to the lantern of VIIII the Hermit - is that underground chambers and caves were often investigated with such poor lighting instruments.
In the 18th book of Homer's Iliad, to return to the previous train of thought, it is mentioned that Haphaestus had maidservants who assisted him in his movements. It is worthy to note that, unlike the ambiguity (which I prefer) occuring in most Marseilles decks, the Noblet tied 'creatures' are clearly both female - in addition to one of the feet of the central figure appearing deformed, making it lame, as Hephaestus was!
With regards to the triple nipples, it was commonly believed that women who had an extra nipple (or two) were 'witches' (in the mediaeval church sense of this word) in league with the Devil. The additional nipple(s) there for suckling by the beast. When I first noticed it on the Conver deck I obtained a number of years ago, there was a moment of instant recognition that this was both appropriate and highly significant. It certainly indicates that those who are bound to the Devil's anvil are also feeding it.
But enough for now...
Attached, as mentioned above, is the (restored) 1650 Noblet version.
Attachments
catlin
Sword without hilt
Hm, when the sword without hilt was mentioned, I started pondering if the hilt was left out because a sword with a hilt ressembles a cross, so maybe the woodcutters did not wish to have a devil hold a cross in his hand.
B/W does anybody know since what time the devil is depicted with a trident in his hand? The trident was the symbol of Neptune and Shiva.
Hm, when the sword without hilt was mentioned, I started pondering if the hilt was left out because a sword with a hilt ressembles a cross, so maybe the woodcutters did not wish to have a devil hold a cross in his hand.
B/W does anybody know since what time the devil is depicted with a trident in his hand? The trident was the symbol of Neptune and Shiva.
catboxer
I don't know when that started, but it certainly recalls the earliest images of the devil I can remember. He was a bright red humanoid, with a black pointed beard, horns, a tail that ended in an arrowhead, hooves, and a pitchfork.
I don't think the devil's pitchfork is related to Neptune's trident. Neptune's is a fishing tool, and I would assume the devil uses his pitchfork to pitch sinners into the fire, the way a farmer pitches bales of hay into a wagon. I don't know why Shiva carries a trident.
I don't think the devil's pitchfork is related to Neptune's trident. Neptune's is a fishing tool, and I would assume the devil uses his pitchfork to pitch sinners into the fire, the way a farmer pitches bales of hay into a wagon. I don't know why Shiva carries a trident.
jmd
One of the appelations of Christ is as a 'fisher of men'. That the trident is also a fishing tool is thus also quite significant, but inversed.
One can look upon the Devil's representation with such a gruesome fishing tool, also used to fish people, as inversing or substituting the true Kingfisher's rightful place.
One can look upon the Devil's representation with such a gruesome fishing tool, also used to fish people, as inversing or substituting the true Kingfisher's rightful place.
catlin
That sounds plausible, jmd! I should have thought about that myself. Catlin seems to be getting old!
Macavity
Devil-ish Imagery
Looking at images of the Devil from the Tarot origins onwards, one cannot help but be struck by a number of characteristic features. Hermaphroditism - Well OK. But does anyone know where this idea of the Second Face in the midrif region originated? Mythological? Medieval? Simply to convey a notion of "oddness" etc.? I notice these designs predate the occultists, Eliphas Levi etc. Does this specific feature have any interpretive significance? Just Wondering
Macavity
Looking at images of the Devil from the Tarot origins onwards, one cannot help but be struck by a number of characteristic features. Hermaphroditism - Well OK. But does anyone know where this idea of the Second Face in the midrif region originated? Mythological? Medieval? Simply to convey a notion of "oddness" etc.? I notice these designs predate the occultists, Eliphas Levi etc. Does this specific feature have any interpretive significance? Just Wondering
Macavity
HudsonGray
That image showed up an awful lot in Medieval art. I think it was to frighten people via the strangeness. Not sure if they were associated at first with demons, or just put there as a form of strangeness (they combined a lot of anima./bird/fish parts too). The design showed up before Bosch, so he's not the origin of that type of thing. He just used it a lot.
Interestingly enough, the art showing Green Men were very benign (it was a sort of father earth, man of the forest thing) and were never shown as demonic.
Interestingly enough, the art showing Green Men were very benign (it was a sort of father earth, man of the forest thing) and were never shown as demonic.
baba-prague
good link with information
Hi Macavity,
This is a really good source of information:
http://www.tarot.com/about-tarot/library/boneill/devil
There's so much there that I don't feel I can add anything, except to say that we have seen some statues in Prague that also show the Devil partly made up of faces. Very odd and quite disturbing. Like HudsonGray says, it goes back much earlier than Bosch.
By the way, your tagline is great, I love it (then again, maybe it's not a joke, purr-haps it's true?)
karen
Hi Macavity,
This is a really good source of information:
http://www.tarot.com/about-tarot/library/boneill/devil
There's so much there that I don't feel I can add anything, except to say that we have seen some statues in Prague that also show the Devil partly made up of faces. Very odd and quite disturbing. Like HudsonGray says, it goes back much earlier than Bosch.
By the way, your tagline is great, I love it (then again, maybe it's not a joke, purr-haps it's true?)
karen
