The Magician, Self study and feedback.
Moderators: eye_of_tiger, shalimar123, TarotModerator
-
TarotModerator
- Posts: 265
- Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:41 pm
The Magician, Self study and feedback.
This thread is dedicated to self-study and feedback on The Magician.
We run a self study course in Tarot...please sign up..work together with your fellow students...and if further help is needed...ask for help....
Follow this link to the main document for the Magician.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VGN ... edit?hl=en
Why do we have a Sticky for the topic and then another thread for study and commenting? Why not have the learning mataterial in the same thread where discussions and ideas will be aired?
With respect, this is becoming a bit confusing guys....
My apologies for putting my nose into this, but let us do away with these stickies and have a Thread for each card and discussions to be carried out in that very same thread. This is my opinion as I myself am getting confused on how to navigate.
i agree! cedars wrote:Follow this link to the main document for the Magician.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VGN ... edit?hl=en
Why do we have a Sticky for the topic and then another thread for study and commenting? Why not have the learning mataterial in the same thread where discussions and ideas will be aired?
With respect, this is becoming a bit confusing guys....
My apologies for putting my nose into this, but let us do away with these stickies and have a Thread for each card and discussions to be carried out in that very same thread. This is my opinion as I myself am getting confused on how to navigate.
Common sense dictates there is no such thing as common sense.
-
Payewacker
- Posts: 1322
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:01 am
Hi Guys,
OOOOHHH, sorry if everything is a bit upside down!! I have been very busy to get some of the other topics ready and didn't follow up on everything!!!!
MMMM, I wanted to have all the topics themselves listed as stickies, starting with the first lesson and going down to the last. This is not working! Swetha and TM has been working non stop to try and get everything in order.
Ok, what I think, is to have a "main index" as now, pointing to the lesson itself, with all the content, and the thread url. I will also ask to have the lesson posted in the discussion thread, as first posting.
To have the thread with the discussion, will have the opposite effect inasmuch the "main" content will be lost lower down, especially if we have more than one page in the discussions.
We don't want to undo the work Swetha and her team has put into this nor that of TM. To do the topics which are as "stickies" in normal threads is fine, because we will still have the main index as navigation "pane"?
We must remember that not all the students have enrolled yet, and they may do so in six months time, when we are done or almost through. They need to be able to start at the beginning and work there way through, with our comments as well.
These are only thoughts, how do you think?
Blessed be.
OOOOHHH, sorry if everything is a bit upside down!! I have been very busy to get some of the other topics ready and didn't follow up on everything!!!!
MMMM, I wanted to have all the topics themselves listed as stickies, starting with the first lesson and going down to the last. This is not working! Swetha and TM has been working non stop to try and get everything in order.
Ok, what I think, is to have a "main index" as now, pointing to the lesson itself, with all the content, and the thread url. I will also ask to have the lesson posted in the discussion thread, as first posting.
To have the thread with the discussion, will have the opposite effect inasmuch the "main" content will be lost lower down, especially if we have more than one page in the discussions.
We don't want to undo the work Swetha and her team has put into this nor that of TM. To do the topics which are as "stickies" in normal threads is fine, because we will still have the main index as navigation "pane"?
We must remember that not all the students have enrolled yet, and they may do so in six months time, when we are done or almost through. They need to be able to start at the beginning and work there way through, with our comments as well.
These are only thoughts, how do you think?
Blessed be.
No, I still think the topic of the lesson and the discussion thread should the one and the same. Atll these stickies flying around is going to confuse everyone and it is already.
One thread for each card and within that same thread take place all the discussions and exchange of ideas. I am sure we may digress or deviate during the discussions, but we can always bring the topic back in line to the main discussion. If posting pictures is not posible, then referring to the Google site is not a bad option at all. How did Gem did all the postings and picturing in one thread?
This is not an attack on anyone, but when the navigation becomes difficult, we will have no students enrolling to the lesson.
Why do we have all the Aces already in place at this stage? I thought we were going to do the Major Arcana first and the numeric philosophy around the tarot cards.
My penny's worth
One thread for each card and within that same thread take place all the discussions and exchange of ideas. I am sure we may digress or deviate during the discussions, but we can always bring the topic back in line to the main discussion. If posting pictures is not posible, then referring to the Google site is not a bad option at all. How did Gem did all the postings and picturing in one thread?
This is not an attack on anyone, but when the navigation becomes difficult, we will have no students enrolling to the lesson.
Why do we have all the Aces already in place at this stage? I thought we were going to do the Major Arcana first and the numeric philosophy around the tarot cards.
My penny's worth
The Magician of Tarot de Marseilles, doesnt do much to me. It feels like some sort of carticature and yet there are people who actually work and intuit with it. Is it then a matter of learning the meaning of a card by heart? The way I look at the non-human-like picture, I cannot even get a connection of a magician through it, whereas the other three images are telling me something.
A light observation on the Magician.
A light observation on the Magician.
-
Payewacker
- Posts: 1322
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:01 am
Hi Cedars,
The Tarot de Marseilles has a very short history, in fact not really interesting, I found this:
About the origin of the Tarot de Marseilles, we know few things but we can however say that the Tarot de Marseille play appeared in France under the reign of the king Charles VI.
When this poor king became insane, he was locked up in a castle by his wife Isabeau of Bavaria.
She provided him a mistress, Odette de Champdivert, who offered a deck of Tarot cards to him.
In fact, these Tarot cards were composed by 56 pieces of paperboard decorated with figures and signs. This play was used by Sarasins in the Eastern countries.
Charles VI asked to Jacquemin Gringonneur to redraw the figures in order to make them look prettier.
Some claim that the first illuminations of the cards appeared in Italy during the 16th century but the work of Jacquemin Gringonneur is indexed on the journal of Charles VI's banker (15th century).
The Tarot we talk about here was not a divinatory Tarot but well a card play ; which still exists and is still used in Mediterranean countries as a simple cards play.
Since there are no documents establishing the year when the Tarot cards were created, the opinions are divided and the experts seldom agree between them.
The divinatory "Tarot de Marseilles" was born from the play offered to Charles VI. Twenty-two major arcana were associated to the fifty-six basic cards (minor arcana). Fortune-tellers use more major arcana than the minor arcana.
The graphics of the Tarot de Marseilles look medieval style and reflect perfectly the concerns of our ancestors, who were very superstitious and interpreted all what they saw.
Here are the 22 major arcana:
I. The Magician,
II. The High Priestess
III. The Empress
IIII. The Emperor *
V. The Pope
VI. The Lovers
VII. The Chariot
VIII. Justice
VIIII. The Hermit *
X. The Wheel of Fortune
XI. Strength
XII. The Hanged Man
XIII. Death (or The Noname Arcana)
XIIII. Temperance *
XV. The Devil
XVI. The Tower
XVII. The Star,
XVIII. The Moon,
XVIIII. The Sun *,
XX. Judgement,
XXI. The World,
XXII. The Fool **
* for example, classification "IIII" and not "IV" highlights the progression of the Tarot de Marseilles play.
** The Fool is the last Major Arcana but is seen as a card not numbered.
The minor arcana is split into four suits:
* Spears,
* Cups,
* Coins,
* Swords;
Which include 14 cards that are numbered from 1 to 10, or Ace to 10 and 4 Court cards ; which are: the Page, the Knight, the Queen and the King. During the Middle-Ages and later, these suits were associated with the social classes: Coins with the Traders, Cups with the Clergy, Swords with the Nobility and Spears with the Peasants.
What seems interesting, is the division of the suits, or "classification" of the people or classes represented. Veery interesting? This theory is not a wild card?
I searched around a bit and found interesting discussions on the Magician of Tarot de Marseilles.
The Magician or Bateleur (Juggler) is the first card of the Major Arcana. Number one stands alone. It is the start, the beginning of something. And so, our Magician is initiating something. What is it?
Is he a servant of others now moving to a role of master of self?
mikeh wrote:
Pen, I am still waiting for an explanation of why the fourth leg, in the Noblet and Vieville and Conver, could not be behind the bateleur's leg, straight up and down and totally hidden by his leg. You only showed that it couldn't behind his leg at an angle to it, partly visible at the top, something I had conceded to Debra already. Or did I miss something? (I have tried "Arghhh!!", but it doesn't help.)
Now I'm screaming "Arghhhhh"! If the fourth leg were behind the Bateleur's leg, not only would the table top be outside the bounds of artistic licence, given even the casual attitude to perspective shown in these drawings, but unless that leg was attached to the centre of the table top rather than on the corner, his body would have to go through it.
I've done all I can with this now, I guess everyone will have to decide for him/herself, as I've said more than once on this thread. Regarding the stabilty of three-legged tables, as I said before, it depends on where the third leg is positioned - the table Debra's drew would certainly work, what we have to ask is (given the visible table top on each card) whether that sort of table is possible/likely.
Pen
Thanks for trying, Pen, I appreciate hearing your perspective (no pun intended). I admit errors all the time; but not this time. Just let me say that I think your extension of the table top, which is what makes my proposed possibility look ridiculous, is a trick, introducing an artificial and foreign way of looking at the table. Hardly anybody in those days except a trained artist (and yes, Conver's cutter is a trained artist, but he's messing with us) would look at the table your way, as extending that far out of the frame, unless under the influence of your diagrams; for most people, it would be mostly there, in the frame,[added next day: roughly parallel to the right side of the frame and a little further out--to the extent the issue entered their consciousness at all--as in my modification to your diagram, the added line just outside the frame, below:
You notice that my reconstructed table forms a kind of trapezoid. It no weirder-loking than your table. That may be why the people who drew four legs drew trapezoids for the whole tabletop (e.g. the Rosenwald, de Gebelin) .]
They were that ignorant of how three dimensions projecting onto two dimensions would look (or whatever you are doing). De Gebelin and his "artist," as late as they were, didn't notice anything wrong with their table and their Magician's legs. Neither did I, until this discussion. [Added next day: He probably asked for copies of the Conver trumps and liked the results. I can imagine him holding the drawing up next to the card and saying, "Yes, you got it!" or perhaps "Formidable!"] We see photographs every day, and they train us in what is "correct" and "real"; earlier, people didn't have such aids. (I credit this point to David Hockney's book on Renaissance art, hoping that people won't reply with an ad hominem argument.) And the table leg wouldn't have to go through his leg at all. He just has his foot pushed out forward toward the middle, blocking the bottom half--as shown in numerous engravings and woodblocks of people standing at similar tables shown from a different angle, some of which I posted on this thread. But I will refrain from beating further what appears to be a dead horse.
You notice that my reconstructed table forms a kind of trapezoid. It no weirder-loking than your table. That may be why the people who drew four legs drew trapezoids for the whole tabletop (e.g. the Rosenwald, de Gebelin) .]
They were that ignorant of how three dimensions projecting onto two dimensions would look (or whatever you are doing). De Gebelin and his "artist," as late as they were, didn't notice anything wrong with their table and their Magician's legs. Neither did I, until this discussion. [Added next day: He probably asked for copies of the Conver trumps and liked the results. I can imagine him holding the drawing up next to the card and saying, "Yes, you got it!" or perhaps "Formidable!"] We see photographs every day, and they train us in what is "correct" and "real"; earlier, people didn't have such aids. (I credit this point to David Hockney's book on Renaissance art, hoping that people won't reply with an ad hominem argument.) And the table leg wouldn't have to go through his leg at all. He just has his foot pushed out forward toward the middle, blocking the bottom half--as shown in numerous engravings and woodblocks of people standing at similar tables shown from a different angle, some of which I posted on this thread. But I will refrain from beating further what appears to be a dead horse.
Re: The Magician
by mikeh on 27 Apr 2010, 22:30
Well, I did mess with my earlier post a tiny bit, to make it clearer.
Re: The Magician
by SteveM on 28 Apr 2010, 01:20
I see what your saying Mike, and while I do not agree that it necessarily is so I agree that it is possible for the bateleurs leg to be in front of the table leg (without magically passing though the object). Pen's examples (for which a big thankyou) do make a lot of sense and are convincing, but it is a valid objection that such rests upon our total familiarity with perspective and being so accustomed to seeing and reading a two dimensional object within its conventions. While convincing, applying the rules of perspective to an object to which such rules do not seem to have been applied is somewhat 'tricky'.
I have always suspected that if it is to be read in terms of perspective, it is rather in the manner of inverse perspective, also known as Byzantine perspective, in which the vanishing point is towards the viewer somewhat like the 'reversed perspective' example here:
http://www.atelier-st-andre.net/en/page ... ctive.html
This I think would give a reading of the table somewhat closer to your redrawing in post above, than the one we may expect from the perspective to which we are more accustomed as applied by Pen: this still would not necessarily put the table leg behind that of the juggler however.
See for example the pedestal of the virgin and child here:
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-me ... 2CBA70.jpg
The application of byzantine ‘reverse perspective’ results in the trapezium shape of rectangular objects. In art this was sometimes applied to a singular object within the picture to designate its symbolic importance (symbolic as opposed to naturalistic perspective we may also find in the example of important figures being drawn much larger than others in the picture - a type of symbolic perspective we also find used in tarot images).
See the bed of the virgin here:
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/images/birth6.jpg
the cradle here (which also shows how the leg may still be ‘outside’ of the frame):
http://www.ottobwiersma.nl/philosophy/b ... virgin.jpg
"Our eye sees as our mind reads." Edgar Wind
"Inverse"--wow, I had no idea. Very interesting perspective, Steve (pun intended), and thanks for the links. So maybe that's why the Rosenwald, whose table shows four legs, is a trapezoid; the artist knew the Byzantine tradition.
SteveM wrote,
while I do not agree that it necessarily is so I agree that it is possible for the bateleurs leg to be in front of the table leg (without magically passing though the object)
I do not say it is necessarily so, either, just possible, psychologically and culturally, and even then, weird.
Don't worry Pen, I'm with you! No trapezoids, super-weird perspectives or three legs for me!
The table is supposed to have four legs, and the last leg, and corner of the table, is outside of the picture.
This is either a direct ancestor or ancient cousin of the Tarot de Marseille, showing the tendency in this tradition not to show the table frontally, but at an angle. The fourth "leg" isn't visible, but we know it's there.
Sorry about the inset - it's the only one I have at the moment. This was made by Michael Hurst, I believe, when we were discussing the monkey on the figure's back.
Thanks Ross, where would you say the lines of that table converge? Away from the viewer, as in conventional perspective, or towards the viewer, as in Byzantine (super-wierd as you choose to call it) perspective?
A couple of more examples of so called 'super wierd' perspective:
http://raympoon.playgroundhk.com/video/icon6.jpg
http://www.novgorod.ru/english/images/65.gif
Wiki's explanation of 'reverse perspective', in which lines diverge on the horizon and converge towards the viewer (the oppposite of conventional linear perspective):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_perspective
By "super weird" I don't mean the typical medieval or byzantine manner of drawing, but Mike's suggestion that the table more or less ends at the edge of the card, making a very sharp point towards the upper right (our upper right). I don't see any justification for that in our tarots. Even although the perspective is a little screwy, it isn't as screwy as that.
It might be that the magician was originally depicted seated, as in the Cary sheet, which could explain why his legs and feet are impossibly placed relative to the front legs of the table.
Mike keeps saying that his view is no weirder than Pen's, but I disagree. The only thing weird about Pen's tables are the feet of the legs, which given the placement of the magician's legs are an acceptable degree of weirdness.
Whatever, thanks anyhow for another example in tarot of the use of byzantine perspective, the use of which could in fact result in the shape of a table top like Mike has suggested.
I agree with you re: the convention of showing the table at an angle, there is another example somewhere that would place the hidden leg inside of the picture frame, I'll see if I can find it.
Here you go, the magician here:
http://trionfi.com/0/j/d/sheets/
This shows the entire table as well - I don't see the point of the comparison.
My opinion is just that if you put Pen's reconstructions beside Mike's, I think Pen's is the most reasonable solution as to what the artist meant to convey. The fact that the legs never really "work" from a strictly orthodox perspective position is irrelevant, since it is not strictly orthodox perspective. It's the degree of divergence I'm talking about.
Pen and I take less as being more logical, you and Mike take more as being more logical.
I copied a page, you can follow this link to the discussion:
http://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic ... t=70#p6850
You will see that they refer to pics they have attached, showing their theories and how they got to them.
This was interesting, to see how others also look at symbolism.
Blessed be.
The Tarot de Marseilles has a very short history, in fact not really interesting, I found this:
About the origin of the Tarot de Marseilles, we know few things but we can however say that the Tarot de Marseille play appeared in France under the reign of the king Charles VI.
When this poor king became insane, he was locked up in a castle by his wife Isabeau of Bavaria.
She provided him a mistress, Odette de Champdivert, who offered a deck of Tarot cards to him.
In fact, these Tarot cards were composed by 56 pieces of paperboard decorated with figures and signs. This play was used by Sarasins in the Eastern countries.
Charles VI asked to Jacquemin Gringonneur to redraw the figures in order to make them look prettier.
Some claim that the first illuminations of the cards appeared in Italy during the 16th century but the work of Jacquemin Gringonneur is indexed on the journal of Charles VI's banker (15th century).
The Tarot we talk about here was not a divinatory Tarot but well a card play ; which still exists and is still used in Mediterranean countries as a simple cards play.
Since there are no documents establishing the year when the Tarot cards were created, the opinions are divided and the experts seldom agree between them.
The divinatory "Tarot de Marseilles" was born from the play offered to Charles VI. Twenty-two major arcana were associated to the fifty-six basic cards (minor arcana). Fortune-tellers use more major arcana than the minor arcana.
The graphics of the Tarot de Marseilles look medieval style and reflect perfectly the concerns of our ancestors, who were very superstitious and interpreted all what they saw.
Here are the 22 major arcana:
I. The Magician,
II. The High Priestess
III. The Empress
IIII. The Emperor *
V. The Pope
VI. The Lovers
VII. The Chariot
VIII. Justice
VIIII. The Hermit *
X. The Wheel of Fortune
XI. Strength
XII. The Hanged Man
XIII. Death (or The Noname Arcana)
XIIII. Temperance *
XV. The Devil
XVI. The Tower
XVII. The Star,
XVIII. The Moon,
XVIIII. The Sun *,
XX. Judgement,
XXI. The World,
XXII. The Fool **
* for example, classification "IIII" and not "IV" highlights the progression of the Tarot de Marseilles play.
** The Fool is the last Major Arcana but is seen as a card not numbered.
The minor arcana is split into four suits:
* Spears,
* Cups,
* Coins,
* Swords;
Which include 14 cards that are numbered from 1 to 10, or Ace to 10 and 4 Court cards ; which are: the Page, the Knight, the Queen and the King. During the Middle-Ages and later, these suits were associated with the social classes: Coins with the Traders, Cups with the Clergy, Swords with the Nobility and Spears with the Peasants.
What seems interesting, is the division of the suits, or "classification" of the people or classes represented. Veery interesting? This theory is not a wild card?
I searched around a bit and found interesting discussions on the Magician of Tarot de Marseilles.
The Magician or Bateleur (Juggler) is the first card of the Major Arcana. Number one stands alone. It is the start, the beginning of something. And so, our Magician is initiating something. What is it?
Is he a servant of others now moving to a role of master of self?
mikeh wrote:
Pen, I am still waiting for an explanation of why the fourth leg, in the Noblet and Vieville and Conver, could not be behind the bateleur's leg, straight up and down and totally hidden by his leg. You only showed that it couldn't behind his leg at an angle to it, partly visible at the top, something I had conceded to Debra already. Or did I miss something? (I have tried "Arghhh!!", but it doesn't help.)
Now I'm screaming "Arghhhhh"! If the fourth leg were behind the Bateleur's leg, not only would the table top be outside the bounds of artistic licence, given even the casual attitude to perspective shown in these drawings, but unless that leg was attached to the centre of the table top rather than on the corner, his body would have to go through it.
I've done all I can with this now, I guess everyone will have to decide for him/herself, as I've said more than once on this thread. Regarding the stabilty of three-legged tables, as I said before, it depends on where the third leg is positioned - the table Debra's drew would certainly work, what we have to ask is (given the visible table top on each card) whether that sort of table is possible/likely.
Pen
Thanks for trying, Pen, I appreciate hearing your perspective (no pun intended). I admit errors all the time; but not this time. Just let me say that I think your extension of the table top, which is what makes my proposed possibility look ridiculous, is a trick, introducing an artificial and foreign way of looking at the table. Hardly anybody in those days except a trained artist (and yes, Conver's cutter is a trained artist, but he's messing with us) would look at the table your way, as extending that far out of the frame, unless under the influence of your diagrams; for most people, it would be mostly there, in the frame,[added next day: roughly parallel to the right side of the frame and a little further out--to the extent the issue entered their consciousness at all--as in my modification to your diagram, the added line just outside the frame, below:
You notice that my reconstructed table forms a kind of trapezoid. It no weirder-loking than your table. That may be why the people who drew four legs drew trapezoids for the whole tabletop (e.g. the Rosenwald, de Gebelin) .]
They were that ignorant of how three dimensions projecting onto two dimensions would look (or whatever you are doing). De Gebelin and his "artist," as late as they were, didn't notice anything wrong with their table and their Magician's legs. Neither did I, until this discussion. [Added next day: He probably asked for copies of the Conver trumps and liked the results. I can imagine him holding the drawing up next to the card and saying, "Yes, you got it!" or perhaps "Formidable!"] We see photographs every day, and they train us in what is "correct" and "real"; earlier, people didn't have such aids. (I credit this point to David Hockney's book on Renaissance art, hoping that people won't reply with an ad hominem argument.) And the table leg wouldn't have to go through his leg at all. He just has his foot pushed out forward toward the middle, blocking the bottom half--as shown in numerous engravings and woodblocks of people standing at similar tables shown from a different angle, some of which I posted on this thread. But I will refrain from beating further what appears to be a dead horse.
You notice that my reconstructed table forms a kind of trapezoid. It no weirder-loking than your table. That may be why the people who drew four legs drew trapezoids for the whole tabletop (e.g. the Rosenwald, de Gebelin) .]
They were that ignorant of how three dimensions projecting onto two dimensions would look (or whatever you are doing). De Gebelin and his "artist," as late as they were, didn't notice anything wrong with their table and their Magician's legs. Neither did I, until this discussion. [Added next day: He probably asked for copies of the Conver trumps and liked the results. I can imagine him holding the drawing up next to the card and saying, "Yes, you got it!" or perhaps "Formidable!"] We see photographs every day, and they train us in what is "correct" and "real"; earlier, people didn't have such aids. (I credit this point to David Hockney's book on Renaissance art, hoping that people won't reply with an ad hominem argument.) And the table leg wouldn't have to go through his leg at all. He just has his foot pushed out forward toward the middle, blocking the bottom half--as shown in numerous engravings and woodblocks of people standing at similar tables shown from a different angle, some of which I posted on this thread. But I will refrain from beating further what appears to be a dead horse.
Re: The Magician
by mikeh on 27 Apr 2010, 22:30
Well, I did mess with my earlier post a tiny bit, to make it clearer.
Re: The Magician
by SteveM on 28 Apr 2010, 01:20
I see what your saying Mike, and while I do not agree that it necessarily is so I agree that it is possible for the bateleurs leg to be in front of the table leg (without magically passing though the object). Pen's examples (for which a big thankyou) do make a lot of sense and are convincing, but it is a valid objection that such rests upon our total familiarity with perspective and being so accustomed to seeing and reading a two dimensional object within its conventions. While convincing, applying the rules of perspective to an object to which such rules do not seem to have been applied is somewhat 'tricky'.
I have always suspected that if it is to be read in terms of perspective, it is rather in the manner of inverse perspective, also known as Byzantine perspective, in which the vanishing point is towards the viewer somewhat like the 'reversed perspective' example here:
http://www.atelier-st-andre.net/en/page ... ctive.html
This I think would give a reading of the table somewhat closer to your redrawing in post above, than the one we may expect from the perspective to which we are more accustomed as applied by Pen: this still would not necessarily put the table leg behind that of the juggler however.
See for example the pedestal of the virgin and child here:
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-me ... 2CBA70.jpg
The application of byzantine ‘reverse perspective’ results in the trapezium shape of rectangular objects. In art this was sometimes applied to a singular object within the picture to designate its symbolic importance (symbolic as opposed to naturalistic perspective we may also find in the example of important figures being drawn much larger than others in the picture - a type of symbolic perspective we also find used in tarot images).
See the bed of the virgin here:
http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/images/birth6.jpg
the cradle here (which also shows how the leg may still be ‘outside’ of the frame):
http://www.ottobwiersma.nl/philosophy/b ... virgin.jpg
"Our eye sees as our mind reads." Edgar Wind
"Inverse"--wow, I had no idea. Very interesting perspective, Steve (pun intended), and thanks for the links. So maybe that's why the Rosenwald, whose table shows four legs, is a trapezoid; the artist knew the Byzantine tradition.
SteveM wrote,
while I do not agree that it necessarily is so I agree that it is possible for the bateleurs leg to be in front of the table leg (without magically passing though the object)
I do not say it is necessarily so, either, just possible, psychologically and culturally, and even then, weird.
Don't worry Pen, I'm with you! No trapezoids, super-weird perspectives or three legs for me!
The table is supposed to have four legs, and the last leg, and corner of the table, is outside of the picture.
This is either a direct ancestor or ancient cousin of the Tarot de Marseille, showing the tendency in this tradition not to show the table frontally, but at an angle. The fourth "leg" isn't visible, but we know it's there.
Sorry about the inset - it's the only one I have at the moment. This was made by Michael Hurst, I believe, when we were discussing the monkey on the figure's back.
Thanks Ross, where would you say the lines of that table converge? Away from the viewer, as in conventional perspective, or towards the viewer, as in Byzantine (super-wierd as you choose to call it) perspective?
A couple of more examples of so called 'super wierd' perspective:
http://raympoon.playgroundhk.com/video/icon6.jpg
http://www.novgorod.ru/english/images/65.gif
Wiki's explanation of 'reverse perspective', in which lines diverge on the horizon and converge towards the viewer (the oppposite of conventional linear perspective):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_perspective
By "super weird" I don't mean the typical medieval or byzantine manner of drawing, but Mike's suggestion that the table more or less ends at the edge of the card, making a very sharp point towards the upper right (our upper right). I don't see any justification for that in our tarots. Even although the perspective is a little screwy, it isn't as screwy as that.
It might be that the magician was originally depicted seated, as in the Cary sheet, which could explain why his legs and feet are impossibly placed relative to the front legs of the table.
Mike keeps saying that his view is no weirder than Pen's, but I disagree. The only thing weird about Pen's tables are the feet of the legs, which given the placement of the magician's legs are an acceptable degree of weirdness.
Whatever, thanks anyhow for another example in tarot of the use of byzantine perspective, the use of which could in fact result in the shape of a table top like Mike has suggested.
I agree with you re: the convention of showing the table at an angle, there is another example somewhere that would place the hidden leg inside of the picture frame, I'll see if I can find it.
Here you go, the magician here:
http://trionfi.com/0/j/d/sheets/
This shows the entire table as well - I don't see the point of the comparison.
My opinion is just that if you put Pen's reconstructions beside Mike's, I think Pen's is the most reasonable solution as to what the artist meant to convey. The fact that the legs never really "work" from a strictly orthodox perspective position is irrelevant, since it is not strictly orthodox perspective. It's the degree of divergence I'm talking about.
Pen and I take less as being more logical, you and Mike take more as being more logical.
I copied a page, you can follow this link to the discussion:
http://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic ... t=70#p6850
You will see that they refer to pics they have attached, showing their theories and how they got to them.
This was interesting, to see how others also look at symbolism.
Blessed be.
-
Payewacker
- Posts: 1322
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 6:01 am
Hi Guys.
Something else, while we are busy here.
Go to this URL and you find the Popess?
http://trionfi.com/0/j/d/sheets/p/03.jpg
Blessed be
Something else, while we are busy here.
Go to this URL and you find the Popess?
http://trionfi.com/0/j/d/sheets/p/03.jpg
Blessed be
-
TarotModerator
- Posts: 265
- Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:41 pm
5/6/11
Tarot: The Magician
I found this is one of my books, “The cards are called keys because they unlock doors to knowledge and symbolism.” (pg29) I don’t remember seeing anyone hear called them that.
The Magician is the number one card in the Major Arcana which can be misleading because The Fool is Zero making The Magician the second card in the Major Arcana. So if we accept calling them Keys then The Fool would be Key O and the Magician Key I (in Roman numerals) .
If we follow the path of the Majors then the Fool is the first with a young man heading out not careful of his steps and pie in the sky mentality then The Magician would be an older Fool a little older but now with all the tools in front of him for his journey through life.
So now let’s look at The Magician. We see on the table that he has the four suits of the Minor Arcana. They are the sword, wand, pentacle and cup. Each suit symbol has several meanings to those items along with the elements. The Pentacles represent Earth and means money, wealth, finances, p-paychecks s etc. The Swords represent Air and means aggressive action, power, force, militancy etc. The Cups represents water and means love and marriage, femininity, pleasure, emotions etc. The Wands represent Fire and means enterprise, work, labor, business etc. So it is everything he needs to walk his path through this life.
The Magician is also known as the Juggler. I can only assume that is because he has to do a balancing job of the four suits in front of him during his life time.
Above his head is the sign of Infinity.
He is holding a wand in one hand pointing toward the sky or Heaven and the other hand pointing towards the earth or hell.
He is in a garden of roses and lilies and around his waste is a serpent devouring its own tail. The roses and Lilies can mean life and death. One is edible and one is not. The rose is edible and can be used in magick potions where as the lily is poisonous. Then I would think that Roses equal life where as lilies equal death. Not that is there only one meaning because it is not. I have a book of several meanings of the rose and Lilly.
The roses are connected to Venus the goddess of love.
I always deal with the meaning of this card and what it means in a reading. It just seems so full of everything. The book says it is a self made man who takes control of himself, to paraphrase it.
Tarot: The Magician
I found this is one of my books, “The cards are called keys because they unlock doors to knowledge and symbolism.” (pg29) I don’t remember seeing anyone hear called them that.
The Magician is the number one card in the Major Arcana which can be misleading because The Fool is Zero making The Magician the second card in the Major Arcana. So if we accept calling them Keys then The Fool would be Key O and the Magician Key I (in Roman numerals) .
If we follow the path of the Majors then the Fool is the first with a young man heading out not careful of his steps and pie in the sky mentality then The Magician would be an older Fool a little older but now with all the tools in front of him for his journey through life.
So now let’s look at The Magician. We see on the table that he has the four suits of the Minor Arcana. They are the sword, wand, pentacle and cup. Each suit symbol has several meanings to those items along with the elements. The Pentacles represent Earth and means money, wealth, finances, p-paychecks s etc. The Swords represent Air and means aggressive action, power, force, militancy etc. The Cups represents water and means love and marriage, femininity, pleasure, emotions etc. The Wands represent Fire and means enterprise, work, labor, business etc. So it is everything he needs to walk his path through this life.
The Magician is also known as the Juggler. I can only assume that is because he has to do a balancing job of the four suits in front of him during his life time.
Above his head is the sign of Infinity.
He is holding a wand in one hand pointing toward the sky or Heaven and the other hand pointing towards the earth or hell.
He is in a garden of roses and lilies and around his waste is a serpent devouring its own tail. The roses and Lilies can mean life and death. One is edible and one is not. The rose is edible and can be used in magick potions where as the lily is poisonous. Then I would think that Roses equal life where as lilies equal death. Not that is there only one meaning because it is not. I have a book of several meanings of the rose and Lilly.
The roses are connected to Venus the goddess of love.
I always deal with the meaning of this card and what it means in a reading. It just seems so full of everything. The book says it is a self made man who takes control of himself, to paraphrase it.
Common sense dictates there is no such thing as common sense.
Thank you George, this is a refreshing view of the Magician.
Here is another one for those who are interested.
The Magician is the bridge between the world of the spirit and the world of humanity. His right hand holds a staff upraised toward the sky and his left hand points to the earth. The Magician is the transmitter of spiritual power, the mediator between God and mankind. Over the Magician's head is the symbol of eternity, and around his waist is a snake biting its own tail, another symbol of eternity. His magical table holds all four suits of the Tarot, each of which represents one of the four primordial elements of the alchemists; earth, air, fire, and water. His robe is white, symbolizing the purity and innocence found in the Fool, but his cloak is red, representing worldly experience and knowledge. In the bed of flowers at his feet this duality is repeated in the mix of pure white lilies and thorny red roses.
Let us try and do this for all the Majors if we can.
Cheers.
Here is another one for those who are interested.
The Magician is the bridge between the world of the spirit and the world of humanity. His right hand holds a staff upraised toward the sky and his left hand points to the earth. The Magician is the transmitter of spiritual power, the mediator between God and mankind. Over the Magician's head is the symbol of eternity, and around his waist is a snake biting its own tail, another symbol of eternity. His magical table holds all four suits of the Tarot, each of which represents one of the four primordial elements of the alchemists; earth, air, fire, and water. His robe is white, symbolizing the purity and innocence found in the Fool, but his cloak is red, representing worldly experience and knowledge. In the bed of flowers at his feet this duality is repeated in the mix of pure white lilies and thorny red roses.
Let us try and do this for all the Majors if we can.
Cheers.
i know everything i read says that the sneak eating its own tail is the sign of eternity. i just keep wondering, why a snake? compare to just a belt of sorts or something like that! i was trying to find something on the symbolism of the sneak but couldn't. just wondering if anyone has any ideals on that?cedars wrote:Thank you George, this is a refreshing view of the Magician.
Here is another one for those who are interested.
The Magician is the bridge between the world of the spirit and the world of humanity. His right hand holds a staff upraised toward the sky and his left hand points to the earth. The Magician is the transmitter of spiritual power, the mediator between God and mankind. Over the Magician's head is the symbol of eternity, and around his waist is a snake biting its own tail, another symbol of eternity. His magical table holds all four suits of the Tarot, each of which represents one of the four primordial elements of the alchemists; earth, air, fire, and water. His robe is white, symbolizing the purity and innocence found in the Fool, but his cloak is red, representing worldly experience and knowledge. In the bed of flowers at his feet this duality is repeated in the mix of pure white lilies and thorny red roses.
Let us try and do this for all the Majors if we can.
Cheers.
Common sense dictates there is no such thing as common sense.
Eternity Symbol - Snake.
An eternity symbol using a snake, the Ouroboross, is an ancient symbol depicting a serpent or a dragon swallowing its own tail and forming a circle. The Ouroboros often represents self-reflexivity or cyclicality, especially in the sense of something constantly re-creating itself, the eternal return, and other things perceived as cycles that begin anew as soon as they end
On the deepest level Snake's skin shedding symbolises death and rebirth, an idea which is depicted by the image of a snake swallowing its own tail, a symbol of eternity. The Snakes medicine is not to be treated lightly. Its meaning touches on the deepest mysteries in life. If you are ready to shed your own skin, Snake is ready and waiting to guide you through the spiral path of transformation. On a material level snake is vitality, on an emotional level ambition and dreams, on a mental level intellect and power, and on the highest level, the spiritual level wisdom, understanding and wholeness.
As snakes grow, many of them shed their skin at various times, revealing a shiny new skin underneath. For this reason snakes have become symbols of rebirth, transformation, immortality, and healing.
The ancient Greeks considered snakes sacred to Asclepius, the god of medicine. He carried a caduceus, a staff with one or two serpents wrapped around it, which has become the symbol of modern physicians.
For both the Greeks and the Egyptians, the snake represented eternity. Ouroboros, the Greek symbol of eternity, consisted of a snake curled into a circle or hoop, biting its own tail. The Ouroboros grew out of the belief that serpents eat themselves and are reborn from themselves in an endless cycle of destruction and creation
We can go on about this and find different ways of interpretation .
Hope this adds some meaning to the question.
An eternity symbol using a snake, the Ouroboross, is an ancient symbol depicting a serpent or a dragon swallowing its own tail and forming a circle. The Ouroboros often represents self-reflexivity or cyclicality, especially in the sense of something constantly re-creating itself, the eternal return, and other things perceived as cycles that begin anew as soon as they end
On the deepest level Snake's skin shedding symbolises death and rebirth, an idea which is depicted by the image of a snake swallowing its own tail, a symbol of eternity. The Snakes medicine is not to be treated lightly. Its meaning touches on the deepest mysteries in life. If you are ready to shed your own skin, Snake is ready and waiting to guide you through the spiral path of transformation. On a material level snake is vitality, on an emotional level ambition and dreams, on a mental level intellect and power, and on the highest level, the spiritual level wisdom, understanding and wholeness.
As snakes grow, many of them shed their skin at various times, revealing a shiny new skin underneath. For this reason snakes have become symbols of rebirth, transformation, immortality, and healing.
The ancient Greeks considered snakes sacred to Asclepius, the god of medicine. He carried a caduceus, a staff with one or two serpents wrapped around it, which has become the symbol of modern physicians.
For both the Greeks and the Egyptians, the snake represented eternity. Ouroboros, the Greek symbol of eternity, consisted of a snake curled into a circle or hoop, biting its own tail. The Ouroboros grew out of the belief that serpents eat themselves and are reborn from themselves in an endless cycle of destruction and creation
We can go on about this and find different ways of interpretation .
Hope this adds some meaning to the question.
It does help answer the questions I had. I looked up the ouroboros online and found tons of pictures of it. Okay I now see the connection of the serpent on the magician’s belt. It almost sounded like American Indian folk lore when you say “snake’s machine”. Anyway, looked up the ouroboros and found a small thing that said that the ouroboros was used on the Ace of Cups in the early decks. I have never seen that but interesting all the same.cedars wrote:Eternity Symbol - Snake.
An eternity symbol using a snake, the Ouroboross, is an ancient symbol depicting a serpent or a dragon swallowing its own tail and forming a circle. The Ouroboros often represents self-reflexivity or cyclicality, especially in the sense of something constantly re-creating itself, the eternal return, and other things perceived as cycles that begin anew as soon as they end
On the deepest level Snake's skin shedding symbolises death and rebirth, an idea which is depicted by the image of a snake swallowing its own tail, a symbol of eternity. The Snakes medicine is not to be treated lightly. Its meaning touches on the deepest mysteries in life. If you are ready to shed your own skin, Snake is ready and waiting to guide you through the spiral path of transformation. On a material level snake is vitality, on an emotional level ambition and dreams, on a mental level intellect and power, and on the highest level, the spiritual level wisdom, understanding and wholeness.
As snakes grow, many of them shed their skin at various times, revealing a shiny new skin underneath. For this reason snakes have become symbols of rebirth, transformation, immortality, and healing.
The ancient Greeks considered snakes sacred to Asclepius, the god of medicine. He carried a caduceus, a staff with one or two serpents wrapped around it, which has become the symbol of modern physicians.
For both the Greeks and the Egyptians, the snake represented eternity. Ouroboros, the Greek symbol of eternity, consisted of a snake curled into a circle or hoop, biting its own tail. The Ouroboros grew out of the belief that serpents eat themselves and are reborn from themselves in an endless cycle of destruction and creation
We can go on about this and find different ways of interpretation .
Hope this adds some meaning to the question.
Common sense dictates there is no such thing as common sense.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests