Latimer's sermons

Andrea Vitali recently posted an essay with the English title  "A clownish sermon (1529): Instead of the sacred mysteries, a talk on how to play Triumphs", at http://www.letarot.it/page.aspx?id=465&lng=ENG. The original Italian is at  http://www.letarot.it/page.aspx?id=465.

As an Addendum to the English language version of this essay, there appears an essay by me with further comments on the sermons. This Addendum corresponds to part one of the present blog, which was also the initial post of a thread on Tarot History Forum, at http://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1050. More discussion of the points raised is on that thread, some of which I have incorporated in the Addendum and this blog. I thank the contributors to that thread for helping me to improve my essay.

INTRODUCTION

Andrea in his essay calls our attention to a preacher who, unlike most at the time, not only does not criticize the playing of card games, but in fact draws upon a particular game called "triumphs" to make a point about the teachings of the Gospels. Since it is 1529, this game is not tarot but rather the game that assigns to one of the regular suits the role of trumps, so that any card of that suit beats any card of the other suits. What the preacher does is to make this game with the ordinary deck allegorical in a positive way.

This sermon was the occasion of much praise by the first historian of the English Protestants, the Calvinist-leaning John Foxe, in 1563, and of shocked condemnation on the part of the English Jesuit Robert Persons (or Parsons) in 1604. The subject of Andrea's essay is the latter's critique.

Persons observes (https://archive.org/stream/thirdpartoft ... 4/mode/2up, p. 214-215; I have modernized the spelling):

Anno Domini 1529: he [Latimer] made a sermon on playing at Cards, and taught them how to play at Triumph, how to deal the Cards and what every sort thereof did signify, & that the Heart was the Triumph, adding moreover (saith Fox) such praises of that Cards (the Hart when it was Triumph) that though it were never so small, yet would it take up the best Cotecard [Court card] besides in the bunch, yea though it were the King of the Clubs himself, &c. Which handling of this matter was so apt for the time, and so pleasantly applied by him, that it not only declared a singular towardness of wit, but also wrought in the hearers much fruit, to the overthrow of Popish superstition, and setting up of perfect religion.

Then writeth Fox of the beginning of Latymer’s preaching in Cambridge, and of his playing at cards in the pulpit; a fit exordium for such a gospel, as after he was to preach, which commonly was everywhere begun with plays, comedies, puppets, jesting, assailing, railing of sedition, or other like practices (which Fox calleth setting up of perfect Religion) and not as Christ’s gospel began, with Agite poenitentiam, do penance, etc. And you must know that this Carding sermon of Latymer in Cambridge was one of the most spiteful and seditions that ever was heard before in England. For that under pretense of commending the Heart which was Triumph in the Cards, and represented (forsooth) his new Religion, he inveighed most bitterly against most points of Catholic Religion, as though they came not from the Heart: and consequently also compared the teachers thereof to Scribes and Pharisees, and the Bishops and Prelates to the knaves of Clubs, and other like ribaldry and seditious railings”.

That is strong stuff! After reading Andrea's essay, I was interested in seeing Latimer's sermon itself, as opposed to the partisan commentaries, including Foxe's. Since in 1529 King Henry VIII was still trying to get an annulment of his marriage from the Pope, I wondered whether the sermon actually was as described. Would a Bishop of the Catholic Church in England at that time really dare to criticize the Papacy from the pulpit, even by means of not too subtle allusions? That is what my present post is about: Latimer's actual sermon in relation to both Foxe and Persons. 

PRINTING HISTORY OF THE SERMONS

The earliest edition of Latimer's sermons available to me (at my local public library) is one called Fruteful Sermons, printed in 1635. It contains a dedication dated 1571. A list of Latimer's works in the 1906 modern edition of his sermons (p. xvii) has it that this collection was first published in 1572 and reprinted many times thereafter. No sermon of such a nature appears there. The first edition of Latimer's sermons was in 1562, entitled Twenty-seven sermons of Hugh Latimer. I would expect it also to lack such a sermon.

From a remark of Foxe's, in fact, I would think that he was aware that the 1562 collection omitted the sermons of interest to us and saw this as something to be corrected. He says, (Foxe, 1563 edition p. 1367, at http://www.johnfoxe.org/index.php?realm ... lubbes#kw; I again modernize the spelling, since the original is readily available):

The copy and effect of these his sermons, although they were neither fully extracted, neither did they all come to our hands, yet so many as came to our hands, I thought here to set abroad, for that I would wish nothing of that man which may be gotten to be suppressed.

This is followed by a very lengthy document that appears to be the sermon in question, two of them in fact. These same two sermons also appear as the first two sermons in the 1906 modern edition of his works, and with the same stipulation as Foxe gives them (p. 1367): "The Tenor and Effect of Certain Sermons made by Master Latimer in Cambridge, about the year of our Lord 1529" (http://www.anglicanhistory.org/reformat ... card1.html)
What follows, in 1906, is almost word for word a copy of the texts that appear in Foxe's book, except for modernizing the spelling. The two sermons are entitled "First Sermon on the Cards" and "Second Sermon on the Cards". Foxe had the same title for the second sermon but did not have one for the first sermon.

I conclude that the closest we are going to get to Latimer's original sermon is what Foxe has given, pp. 1367-1373, which Latimer's 1906 editor considered reliable enough to include in his Selected Sermons. According to Wikipedia, Latimer at one point, probably in the period 1545-1547 when he was jobless after turning Protestant, "invited Foxe to live with him" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Foxe). Perhaps Foxe copied the sermons then.

THE FIRST SERMON: MATTHEW 5:21-22

The first sermon is on the subject of Tu quis es?, Who art thou? It begins with an elaborate metaphor (p. 1368) involving the port of Calais. Then he answers his question, saying "I am a Christian man or woman". But what does that entail? He says what is required is "keeping to his [Christ's] rule", which "consisteth in many things, as in the commandments, and the works of mercy, and so forth." Then comes his metaphor of the game of triumphs (Foxe 1563, p. 1369, at http://www.johnfoxe.org/index.php?realm=text&gototype=modern&edition=1563&pageid=1369; I leave in the 1906, p. 6, editor's explanation of the game).

And for because I cannot declare Christ's rule unto you at one time, as it ought to be done, I will apply myself according to your custom at this time of Christmas: I will, as I said, declare unto you Christ's rule, but that shall be in Christ's cards. And whereas you are wont to celebrate Christmas in playing at cards, I intend, by God's grace, to deal unto you Christ's cards, wherein you shall perceive Christ's rule. The game that we will play at shall be called the triumph, [This game was something like the modern game of Whist. The cards, however, were not all dealt out; and the dealer had an advantage in being allowed to reject such cards from his hand as he thought proper, and take others in their stead from the undealt stock. An account of the game is given by Singer, "Researches into the History of Playing Cards, &c." pp. 269, 270.] which if it be well played at, he that dealeth shall win; the players shall likewise win; and the standers and lookers upon shall do the same; insomuch that there is no man that is willing to play at this triumph with these cards, but they shall be all winners, and no losers.

The cards, apparently, are metaphorically the elements of Christ's rule. Christ would thus seem to be the "dealer" of these cards. In this sermon Latimer is going to look at one "card", namely the commandment "Thou shalt not kill?". In what does that "card" consist? (Foxe 1563, p. 1369)

Let therefore every christian man and woman play at these cards, that they may have and obtain the triumph: you must mark also that the triumph must apply to fetch home unto him all the other cards, whatsoever suit they be of. Now then, take ye this first card, which must appear and be shewed unto you as followeth: you have heard what was spoken to men of the old Law, Thou shalt not kill; whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of judgment: but I say unto you of the new law, saith Christ, that whosoever is angry with his neighbour, shall be in danger of judgment; and whosoever shall say unto his neighbour, Raca, that is to say, brainless, or any other like word of rebuking, shall be in danger of council; and whosoever shall say unto his neighbour, fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. This card was made and spoken by Christ, as appeareth in the fifth chapter of St Matthew.

Latimer is commenting on Matthew verses 21 and 22, which I give in the Douay-Rheims 18th century Catholic translation, with its footnotes (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=5&l=21#x):

[21] You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. [22] But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
___________________________
[21] Shall be in danger of the judgment: That is, shall deserve to be punished by that lesser tribunal among the Jews, called the Judgment, which took cognizance of such crimes.

[22] Raca: A word expressing great indignation or contempt. Shall be in danger of the council ... That is, shall deserve to be punished by the highest court of judicature, called the Council, or Sanhedrim, consisting of seventy-two persons, where the highest causes were tried and judged, which was at Jerusalem.

[22] Thou fool: This was then looked upon as a heinous injury, when uttered with contempt, spite, or malice: and therefore is here so severely condemned. Shall be in danger of hell fire-- literally, according to the Greek, shall deserve to be cast into the Gehenna of fire. Which words our Saviour made use of to express the fire and punishments of hell.

Latimer sees four aspects of "Thou shalt not kill" in these verses of Matthew. He calls them "four parts of the card" (Foxe 1563, p. 1369f):

Now behold and see, this card is divided into four parts: the first part is one of the commandments that was given unto Moses in the old law, before the coming of Christ; which commandment we of the new law be bound to observe and keep, and it is one of our commandments. The other these parts spoken by Christ be nothing else but expositions unto the first part of this commandment: for in very effect all these four parts be but one commandment, that is to say, Thou shalt not kill. Yet nevertheless, the last three parts do show unto thee how many ways thou mayest kill thy neighbour contrary to this commandment: yet, for all Christ's exposition in the three last parts of this card, the terms be not open enough to thee that dost read and hear them spoken...

Since the three parts that Jesus has added may not be clear to his listeners, Latimer will explain them. The first part is feeling angry at another but not expressing that anger in word or deed (p. 1370):

A man which conceiveth against his neighbour or brother ire or wrath in his mind, by some manner o£ occasion given unto him, although he be angry in his mind against his said neighbour, he will peradventure express his ire by no manner of sign, either in word or deed: yet nevertheless he offendeth against God, and breaketh this commandment in killing his own soul; and is therefore "in danger of judgment."

The second part is actually expressing the anger in words, with a more serious danger attached to it (p. 1370)

Wherefore as he that so declareth his ire either by word or countenance, offendeth more against God, so he both killeth his own soul, and doth that in him is to kill his neighbour's soul in moving him unto ire, wherein he is faulty himself; and so this man is in danger of council.

Finally, to call someone "fool" is the third way of disobeying Christ's commandment, which merits "hell-fire" (Foxe 1563, p. 1370):

...for to call a man fool, that word representeth more envy in a man, than brainless doth. Wherefore he doth most offend, because he doth most earnestly with such words express his ire, and so he is in danger of hell fire.

I can see that expressing contempt is more insulting than merely expressing anger, but I am not myself sure what the difference is between "fool" and "brainless". Perhaps "fool" had a different connotation than it does today. According to Persons, a “gray friar” had in that year of 1529 “raged against Maister Latymer callinge him a madd and brainless man” (p. 217). So Latimer’s sermon is in a way a reply to that charge. If so, perhaps “fool” had the meaning of “madman” as opposed to “brainless”. Persons later, in calling Latimer a “buffoon” and his sermon "clownish" is in the same tradition as the “gray friar” (presumably the same as the “Augustinian” Foxe mentions, who “took occasion...to inveigh against him”, p. 1366).

These three parts of the card, according to Matthew 5:21-22, have progressively worse punishments in hell. For the third, he says (Foxe 1563, p. 1371):

Hell fire is more pain in hell, than council or judgment, and it is ordained for him that calleth his neighbour fool, by reason that in calling his neighbour fool, he declareth more his malice, in that it is an earnest word of ire: wherefore hell-fire is appointed for it; that is, the most pain of the three punishments.

A rather live issue in 1529 was the threat of the Turks against Christian lands. But unlike other preachers, Latimer does not invoke the Turks so as to preach war against an external enemy. Instead, Latimer invokes the metaphor of hearts as trumps, by which to subdue the “Turks” as a metaphor for our evil-disposed inclinations, i.e. feeling anger toward our neighbor, expressing it in words, and in extreme words such as "brainless" and "fool" (p. 1371):

These evil-disposed affections and sensualities in us are always contrary to the rule of our salvation. What shall we do now or imagine, to thrust down these Turks and to subdue them? It is a great ignominy and shame for a christian man to be bond and subject unto a Turk: nay, it shall not be so; we will first cast a trump in their way, and play with them at cards, who shall have the better. Let us play therefore on this fashion with this card. Whensoever it shall happen the foul passions and Turks to rise in our stomachs against our brother or neighbour, either for unkind words, injuries, or wrongs, which they have done unto us, contrary unto our mind; straightways let us call unto our remembrance, and speak this question unto ourselves, Who art thou? The answer is, I am a christian man." Then further we must say to ourselves, "What requireth Christ of a Christian man?" Now turn up your trump, your heart (hearts is trump, as I said before), and cast your trump, your heart, on this card; and upon this card you shall learn what Christ requireth of a christian man, ­ not to be angry, nor moved to ire against his neighbour, in mind, countenance, nor other ways, by word or deed. Then take up this card with your heart, and lay them together: that done, you have won the game of the Turk, whereby you have defaced and overcome him by true and lawful play.

I am not sure what rule Latimer is imagining for this game. Apparently it involves two cards: the one card "Do not kill" and another card, the heart. One is to "lay them together". I do not know any such game, but this interpretation is confirmed by the "second sermon on the card", where he adds a third card, saying (on p. 1375 of the 1563 edition):

By and by cast down your trump, your heart, and look first of one card, then of another. The first card telleth thee, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not be angry, thou shalt not be out of patience. This done, thou shalt look if there be any more cards to take up; and if thou look well, thou shalt see another card of the same suit, wherein thou shalt know that thou art bound to reconcile thy neighbour. Then cast thy trump upon them both, and gather them all three together, and do according to the virtue of thy cards; and surely thou shalt not lose.

Returning to the first sermon, I see two more metaphors about the cards, that of "breaking" a card and "playing the blind trump" (Foxe 1563. p. 1372):

And so you may perceive that there be many a one that breaketh this card, Thou shalt not kill," and playeth therewith oftentime at the blind trump, whereby they be no winners, but great losers. But who be those nowadays that can clear themselves of these manifest murders used to their children and servants? I think not the contrary, but that many have these two ways slain their own children unto their damnation; unless the great mercy of God were ready to help them when they repent there-for.

By "their children and servants" Latimer means one's own angry thoughts and actions. "Breaking" a card means to break a commandment. I am not sure what "playing a blind trump" means; perhaps it is acting from the heart, but ignorantly, so that anger erupts and festers. The idea of playing not only a commandment card but also a trump, means not to merely to superficially be without anger, and to others' face and even one's own, but deeply, beyond all our attempts at deception and self-deception.

He ends with the example of Mary Magdalene, whom Christ allowed to wash his feet, although the "Pharisees" treated her with disdain because of her low status and her sins. Those who disdain the sinner who forsakes his or her sin is like the Pharisee with Magdalene (p. 1372):

And think you not, but that there be amongst us a great number of these proud Pharisees, which think themselves worthy to bid Christ to dinner; which will perk, and presume to sit by Christ in the church, and have a disdain of this poor woman Magdalene, their poor neighbour, with a high, disdainous, and solemn countenance?

Again, what matters is the commandment "Do not kill" as Christ interprets it, not to be disdainful of others. Latimer concludes (Foxe 1562, p. 1372f):

If we be the true Magdalenes, we should be as willing to forsake our sin and rise from sin, as we were willing to commit sin and to continue in it; and we then should know ourselves best, and make more perfect answer than ever we did unto this question, who art thou? to the which we might answer, that we be true christian men and women: and then, I say, you should understand, and know how you ought to play at this card, thou shalt not kill, without any interruption of your deadly enemies the Turks; and so triumph at the last, by winning everlasting life in glory.

"Without interruption" is a tall order; it is the disempowerment of our evil inclinations, our disdain of others, at all times.

THE SECOND SERMON: PLAYING THREE CARDS AT ONCE, MATTHEW 5:23-25

In the second sermon, as already mentioned, he talks about a second "card", that is, the rule or commandment to make amends to those one has sinned against. I think he is referring to the verses immediately following the passage he talked about in his first sermon (about Christ's three additional ways of violating the commandment "Do not kill", Matt. 5:21-22). Matthew 5 goes on to say, in verses 23-25, in the Douhy-Rheims translation (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=5&l=21#x):

[23] If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee; [24] Leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift. [25] Be at agreement with thy adversary betimes, whilst thou art in the way with him: lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

Latimer puts this “rule”, to reconcile with one's brother, in the context of various acts of penance encouraged by the church and finds them of no consequence unless the rule of making amends is done as well, to the extent one is able; only then can one hope for reconciliation with God (p. 1375)::

But yet Christ will not accept our oblation (although we be in patience, and have reconciled our neighbour), if that our oblation be made of another man's substance; but it must be our own. See therefore that thou hast gotten thy goods according to the laws of God and of thy prince. For if thou gettest thy goods by polling and extortion, or by any other unlawful ways, then, if thou offer a thousand pound of it, it will stand thee in no good effect; for it is not thine. In this point a great number of executors do offend; for when they be made rich by other men's goods, then they will take upon them to build churches, to give ornaments to God and his altar, to gild saints, and to do many good works therewith; but it shall be all in their own name, and for their own glory. Wherefore, saith Christ, they have in this world their reward; and so their oblations be not their own, nor be they acceptable before God.

Building churches, giving ornaments, gilding saints, etc., are what Latimer calls "voluntary works", as opposed to "necessary works", i.e. the following of Christ's law, and "acts of mercy", both of which take precedence (Foxe 1563, p 1375):

setting up candles, gilding and painting, building of churches, giving of ornaments, going on pilgrimages, making of high-ways, and such other, be called voluntary works; which works be of themselves marvelous good, and convenient to be done.

It seems to me that Latimer is attacking the Catholic Church here only in so far as it might have implied or taught that "voluntary works" can be done in the place of Christ's commandments, which he calls "necessary works". I do not know what Catholic doctrine was at that time; it is not, to one as unschooled as I, an obviously anti-Catholic sermon,

PERSONS AND FOXE, TWO EXTREMES

Persons opposes the Gospel’s Agite poenitentiam, “Do Penance” to Latimer’s downgrading of extraordinary monetary support for the Church, pilgrimages, etc. as an act of penance. But it seems to me more a matter of what kinds of penance are most important, and what kinds of damage need to be repaired by penance. Latimer is saying that to repair the damage to one’s relationship to God one must first repair the damage to one’s relationship to one’s fellow humans. Latimer sees in the Gospel a social message as part of the spiritual one. It is not a question of works vs. faith. It is only a question of which works to perform so as to fulfill Christ’s commandments.

Latimer in these sermons seems to me not nearly as anti-Catholic as Persons makes him out to be; I see little difference between him and Erasmus, who was greatly influential in the England of Latimer’s earlier days. Although after the Council of Trent, all of Erasmus’s books were put on the Index, his works were not banned in his lifetime, and he was not excommunicated or subjected to disciplinary measures.

Persons in his estimation of Latimer may have been misled by Foxe. Let us look at Foxe's introduction to the sermons, which he gives just before the text of their "tenor and effect", so as to compare it with those texts. Again I am modernizing the spelling (Foxe 1563, p. 1366f):

,,,master Latimer in the said sermons, (alluding to the common usage of the season) gave the people certain cards out of the 5th, 6th, [and] 7th chapters of St. Mathew, whereupon they might, not only then, but always else, occupy their time. For the chief (as their triumphing card) he limited the heart as the principal thing that they should serve God withal: whereby he quite overthrew all hypocritical & external ceremonies, not sending in [including?] the necessary beautifying of god's holy word & sacraments. For the better attaining hereof, he wished the scriptures to be in English, that the common people might thereby learn their duties, as well to God, as to their neighbors.

The handling of this matter was so apt for the time, & so pleasantly applied of Latimer,that not only it declared a singular towardness of wit in him that preached, but also wrought in the hearers much fruit, to the overthrow of popish superstition, & setting up of perfect religion. For on the Sunday before Christmas day coming to the church & causing the Bell to be tolled to a sermon, [he] entereth into the Pulpit. Upon the text of the gospel read that day in the Church Tu quis es? &c in delivering his cards as is above said, he made the heart to be triumph, exhorting and intuiting all men thereby to serve the Lord with inward heart and true affection, and not with outward ceremonies. The difference betwixt true and false religion, adding moreover to the praise of that triumph, that though it were never so small, yet it would make up the best cote [court] card beside in the bunch, yea though it were the King of Clubs &c, meaning thereby, how the Lord would be worshiped and served, in simplicity of the heart, and verity, wherein consisteth true Christian religion, and not in the outward deeds of the letter only, or in the glistering show of man’s traditions, of pardons, pilgrimages, ceremonies, vows, devotions, voluntary works, and works of erogation, fountains, oblations, the Pope’s supremacy, &c so that all these either be needless, where the other is present, or else be of small estimation in comparison thereof.

If the heart triumphs, Foxe says, then "man’s traditions, of pardons, pilgrimages, ceremonies, vows, devotions, voluntary works, and works of erogation, fountains, oblations, the Pope’s supremacy, &c" are "needless or of small estimation" when the "simplicity of the heart" is present. But this is a misinterpretation of Latimer's words, and metaphor, as he gives them later. Latimer did not say that all one needs is heart, There are also the "necessary actions", namely, Christ's rules, which for Latimer are the "commandments and acts of mercy", which have to be done in a heartfelt way. These come first. And then, if one has resources and time enough, pilgrimages, ornaments, etc. are also good and "ought to be done". Foxe has not seen that in Latimer's card game—as opposed, I assume, to the usual game of triumphs--one must play not just the trumps, in this case hearts, but with them the winning cards that Christ has dealt the players; those cards are his commandments.

It would seem that the winning cards, i.e. the cards with points, which determine the winner, are the commandment cards and not the trumps. The trumps, the hearts, are merely the means by which one accomplishes the commandments. In the game, the trumps are not in themselves the point-getters, but rather the means for obtaining the point-getters, which in the case of tarot (and presumably triumphs) were mainly the court cards. In Latimer’s game, however, the point-getters are the commandments—which are not captured from others but played oneself.

The reference to the King of Clubs, too, is Foxe's, not Latimer's. Persons also mentioned a “Knight of Clubbes” but there is no mention of such a card at all, in either Latimer or Foxe. (This term in itself is of interest: did English decks have “Knights”, as opposed to “Jacks” then? Perhaps so.) Persons' insinuation seems to be that if the Knight of Clubs are bishops, etc., then the King of Clubs would be the Pope. I don't know if Foxe meant the Pope in that metaphor or not. It might be a reference to King Henry VIII or monarchs in general, who held the power of life and death over their subjects; it was when Latimer disagreed with Henry over his “Six Articles” of the faith that Henry removed him from his bishopric and confined him to the Tower.

CONCLUSION 

For me, both Foxe and Persons do Latimer an injustice in their characterizations of Latimer’s sermons. They serve to show, as we know, that second-hand paraphrases represented as repeating what another said, in the hands of a partisan reporter, are likely to be distorted. But at least Foxe had the decency to include something besides his own partisan summary, something approximating direct quotation that he probably didn't write himself since it conflicts with that summary). That long text was as available to Persons as it is to us.

The sermons also show the popularity of the game of triumphs at that time in Cambridge. Perhaps indeed some people thought of Latimer's metaphors when playing the game during the Christmas holidays.

Finally, I am struck by the similarity of Latimer’s views to those of some humanists in 15th century Italy. Starting with Lorenzo Valla, they questioned the Church’s interpretation of “Agite poenitentiam” and other instances of the Vulgate’s Latin.. Some, like Traversari (I get this from Krautheimer, Ghiberti, vol. 1, p. 177; see my post at viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1049&p=15800&hilit=Bible#p15800), called for a faithful translation of the Bible into the vernacular (which Foxe says Latimer did). They, too, stressed the need to do charitable works and opposed with the wordliness of the Papacy of their time. Like him they enjoyed extended allegories. Like him, they knew a game called “triumphs”. It seems to me that Latimer’s sermons might therefore give us insight into how those humanists might have seen the first game with rules similar to that of Latimer’s “triumphs”, i.e. the tarot.

The Game in four Allegorical suits

Latimer's cards in the suit of Hearts all have a particular suit-sign on them, to which the word "heart" is attached in speaking of them. I presume that the same is true of the other suits of the deck. Also, the number cards have numbers, either on the card or indicated by the number of suit signs. Also, the court cards have indications of rank and gender. For the purposes of playing games, this is all the meaning that is needed, just as, for the purposes of playing the special cards of the tarot, all that is needed is whatever is on them for their quick identification.

To give an allegorical meaning to a game of cards, however, more meaning can be imparted to the cards by whoever does the interpreting. It is the same with the special cards of the tarot: they form an allegory only for the person who wants to make an allegory out of them. Andrea has given many examples of such allegorical interpretations of the suits, both Italian and French, in his essay "Symbolic Suits" (http://www.letarot.it/page.aspx?id=180&lng=ENG). These are not all consistent with each other, but there is no reason why they should be. There is no one allegorical meaning, just those that have been given by particular allegorizers. However it is possible to speak of general trends.

APPLYING MORE OF LATIMER'S ALLEGORY TO THE CARDS

It seems to me that Latimer has developed his allegory in just such a historical context (I will say more about that context in the next section). In Italy of this period, perhaps because of the threat of personal consequences (e.g. what happened to Latimer, ridicule and worse), few people expounded on the allegorical meanings of the special cards. We have only the Discourse of Piscina, in Piedmont, and of Anonymous Anonymous Discourse, in central Italy (perhaps there was a reason for the anonymity in the Papal States). But it is hard to imagine that nobody else saw a chance for an allegory with the special cards, because at that people saw allegories everywhere.

However there was not so much silence about the ordinary deck, as Andrea has shown in numerous allegorical expositions of the suits.

In a similar way, it seems to me, we can assign more allegorical meaning to the ordinary cards based on Latimer's text than he has given in his two sermons. We know that there is a trump suit, that of Hearts. Playing it is necessary for “winning”. Also, there is a suit of commandment cards. These, too, must be played in order to “win”. From the second sermon, we know that there are also cards that constitute making amends. This would be a suit for money or other things needed for the maintenance of life and material well-being. I would guess Diamonds for that suit. Since making amends is a matter of returning what one has immorally gotten from someone else, the game involves giving a value-card to another player, restoring something that has been taken from him. This presupposes an element of force or manipulation via deception; for that, there will have to be a suit. This is also implied by the “Do not kill” commandment. To not kill, it must be possible to kill. I would imagine Spades for this suit, as the translation of the Italian "Spada", Sword; it stands for a weapon that somehow can be used to take cards of value (Diamonds or other Swords) from others. To look in one's hand and see there the need for restitution is to see these Swords and their ill-gotten gains. This leaves Clubs for the commandment suit. Clubs often do not kill but rather inflict pain. The suit symbol corresponds to the penalty for those who do not follow Christ’s rule. On the other hand, in France this suit (in French suits) had the name “Trefles”, meaning “clover”, and in Italy “Fiori”, flowers. The commandments are also pleasant duties, since following them, if a Heart is also played at the same time, constitutes winning (heaven, I assume). So we have the four regular suits.

“Winning” seems to apply only to particular tricks (as in today’s Poker). If you put down a Heart and a Club, and some other card or cards if required, you have “won” the hand. Any player who does the same also wins. The dealer, too, wins thereby, assuming he is not a player. Each player seems to have an inexhaustible supply of Hearts and Clubs, supplied by the dealer. The other suits are in shorter supply. If the game emulates life, then probably Diamonds are given out on a regular basis (as income), and Spades are obtained by paying the dealer a certain number of Diamonds. Spades can be used to “enslave” a person if they have no Diamonds, meaning that the person with the Spade would get the other’s future Diamonds. But the use of a Spade would make it impossible to earn points in that round (I would assume that Latimer would consider slavery as against Jesus's principles; it is even worse than extortion).

The game is thus a series of such rounds, using the regular four suits. If such a game is that presupposed by Latimer’s metaphor, it is a simple one, with rewards and penalties in each round. If heaven and hell are after death, these rewards and penalties only take effect at the end of the game; if they are thought of as present states of the soul—as was just as customary then—then they are immediate. But these are theological niceties. It is somewhat like regular “triumphs”, enough that someone might think of the allegory when playing the regular game. But it also has to be somewhat different, a source of confusion to those who would reflect on it, such as Foxe and Persons.

MORE SUIT SYMBOLISM

These meanings, independently of the larger allegory, are similar to those given by others at this time. Andrea's examples are from 1434 (Vittorino da Feltre), 1638 (Loredano), 1534 (Aretino), 1430-1450 (Bernardino da Siena), c. 1500 (anonymous monk) and 1720 (Father Daniel). There are also the Anonymous Discourse and Piscina's Discourse, in Explaining the Tarot: Two Italian Renaissance Essays on the Meaning of the Tarot Pack, translated and commented upon by Ross Sinclair Caldwell, Thierry Depaulis, and Marco Ponzi. The suits are discussed by Piscina on p. 27 and by Anonymous on pp. 45-53 of this book. Both essays are c. 1565 according to the editors' introductions (pp. 9 and 37).

If Spades is equivalent to Swords, then in Andrea's examples we have: "a fencing master"; the time of year "during which every Prince moves his weapons"; Fortitude; "Death of those who despair of gaming"; Sharpness, of pikes and the taste of capers; "the brevity of the life of the player, since he will be killed by it"; "offensive weapons", I could find no characterization for Bernardino. Piscina has "war" and "death", and the Anonymous Discourse the "profession of arms" (p. 49).

If Coins are equal to Diamonds, we have: "a rich man"; the time of year when "it is possible to gather the grain and the income"; "Justice...which gives the right thing to everyone"; "Prudence"; "the substance of gambling"; "avarice"; "money flowing from players’ hands". Piscina has "contentment", and Anonymous "inextinguishable greed" (p.45) . However two, explicitly for Diamonds, don't fit: Aretino's "the hardness of the player" and Father Daniel's "defensive weapons".

If Cups equal Hearts, we have: "some famous hard drinker"; "cups full of wine"; "Temperance"; "the drinks that reconcile quarrels between gamblers";"drunkenness and gluttony that generate hate and war"; "the poor player lacking food will use a cup for drinking". Piscina has "wine", and Anonymous (p. 53), "delicate foods and very precious wines". This is the feeling of well-being that food and drink provide, on a material level. For hearts specifically, there is Aretino's "the desire to win the hand" [of the game or the lady] and Father Daniel's "courage". In other words, the desire and will to triumph.

If Staves/Batons equal Clubs, we have: "a big man with a large club"; "trees in Winter,,,as naked as staves... in winter, sticks are necessary to keep us warm"; "columns...Fortitude"; "Prudence"; "the punishment that deceivers deserve"; "foolishness or canine ferocity"; "the wood is dry to suggest the drought of divine grace in the player". Piscina (p. has "lighter punishment" than death (p. 27), while Anonymous has "magistrates", with the "power to punish and castigate" (p. 49). For Clubs specifically, or rather Fiore, Flowers, there are Aretino's "pleasure of good talk" and Father Daniel's"fodder that every good captain must procure in abundance". Anonymous's association to magistrates have the most similarity with Latimer on the commandments. There is also Bernardino's negative "drought of However there are the mixed blessings of the bareness of winter, punishment, canine ferocity, and drought, vs. warmth, fortitude, prudence (including, I presume, the prudence of following Christ's commandments), enjoyable talk, and nutritious feed for animals. This opposition corresponds to the pain of condemnation and hell vs. the happiness of heaven..

Something similar to these allegorical meanings are found even in the late 18th century, with de Mellet, de Gebelin and Etteilla. De Mellet says (sections IV and V, Karlin translation pp. 56-57):

The Cups in general announced happiness, & the coins wealth.
The Batons meant for Agriculture prognosticated its more or less abundant harvests, the things which should have occurred in or that regarded the countryside.
They [the Batons] appear mixed of good & of evil...
All the Swords presage only evil, mainly those which imprinted by an odd number, still bear a bloody sword.
...
The Hearts, (the Cups), portend happiness.
The Clubs (the Coins), wealth.
The Spades, (the Swords), misfortune.
The Diamonds, (the Batons), indifference & the countryside.

The only variation here is that he has Clubs instead of Diamonds as corresponding to Coins, in which case Diamonds corresponds to Batons. This is not wrong, just different from what I have projected onto Latimer. As far as Latimer is concerned, it works equally well. My hypothesis is that fortune-tellers identified the pattern inside the Coins as that used by Clubs, and the pattern made by crisscrossing Batons as the pattern for Diamonds (for illustrations, see the bottom of my blog entry at http://dummettsmondo.blogspot.com/2015/07/chapter-1-part-of-4.html. The "mixed good and evil" corresponds to Batons, assigned to either Clubs or Diamonds. "Countryside", is a secular equivalent of Christ's commandments, in that it can be beneficial or harmful, with harvests "more or less" beneficial, depending on the circumstances.

De Gebelin, when it comes to the allegorical nature of the Italian suits, is similar to de Mellet. This comes out in his account of the geographical symbolism of the suits (Article IV, p. 38 of Karlin's translation). He has Swords representing Asia because it is "Land of great Monarchies, grand conquests, major Revolutions"--i.e. the same aggressive component we see elsewhere. Batons represent Egypt, "nourisher of the People", i.e. agriculture. But of course there are the seven lean years, too. Cups represent the North, "whence came Teaching & Science", a secular version of the monks' desire for theological understanding. Coins represent Europe or the West because it is "rich in gold mines".

When it comes to French suits, de Gebelin shows that he knows the standard view that Diamonds are Coins and Clubs Batons; but he doesn't assert it as fact, but rather alludes to it in the form of questions (Article VIII, Karlin p. 45):

The names of the suits are themselves degenerated to the point of no longer offering unity. If one can recognize the sword in the spade, how did the baton become the club? & how is it that the heart & the diamond correspond to the cup & the coin, & which ideas awaken these suits?

Etteilla is somewhat similar to de Gebelin on geography and to de Mellet. In the keywords that Etteilla supplies in the Third Cahier (see my posts at http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.ph ... 963&page=2), one place this is reflected is in the Aces. For Cups, he has "table", in the gastronomic sense of "feast". For Swords, it is "crazy love", probably referring to the jealous type. For Coins, "perfect contentment". For Batons, it is "birth", which doesn't fit. (These translations are mine; for the originals, see Corodil's posts on p. 1 of the thread just cited.)

In the court cards, the historical pattern is reflected in Etteilla's Swords: King, "man of the law", with the explanation, "For the Egyptians of the reign of the true Mercury, those who commanded the Armies, rendered justice, treated the sick and served at the Temples during peace." The Queen is "widowhood", an occupational hazard for the wives of men at arms. The Knight is "soldier", and the page "a spy".

In the other suits, the upright meanings refer to hair color, no doubt inspired by the colors of French suits: Cups is fair-haired, coins is dark (for clubs), and Batons chestnut brown (for diamonds). However the Page of Coins is "helpful", which fits Latimer and the tradition.

The courts' reversed meanings are more in tune with the tradition: the King of Batons is "a man naturally good, but severe". The Queen is "a good woman", the Knight "disunion" and the Page "false news". In Cups, the King is a "merchant selling favors", the Queen a "woman covered with infamy", the Knight "more spirit than conscience", and the Page "flatterer". Both of these pertain to the morality of Latimer's Hearts and his "commandments" suit, which I associate with Batons and Clubs.

In Swords reversed, the King is "wicked man", the Queen, "wicked woman, hot-tempered", the Knight, "conceited", and the Page, "unexpected". These fit the tradition; "unexpected" is a term that applies well to battles, where the element of surprise is important.

And in Coins, the King is "old and vicious man", the Queen "certain trouble", the Knight "good man without employment", and the Page "prodigal". Only the Knight and Page clearly reflect the tradition.

In the word lists that Etteilla's pupils developed, partly in his lifetime, the uprights' relationship to the tradition is more pronounced. In Coins we have "trader", "rich woman", "profits", and "dark-haired boy, study". In Cups it is "honest man, ... arts and sciences", "honest woman...wisdom". But the Knight is simply "arrival" and the Page "studious, fair-haired". In Batons we have "countryman" and "countrywoman, gentleness, virtue", But the Knight is simply "departure" and the Page "stranger".

In his placement of the suits in the sequence--every card is numbered--Etteilla's system is also mostly like Latimer's as I have hypothesized it. For Etteilla, the lower the number, the higher it is in the hierarchy of being. The first 21 are the special cards, corresponding to archetypes, including negative ones; they are followed in order by Batons, Cups, Swords, and Coins. For Latimer, Christ's commandments would seem to be highest, followed by Cups, representing the commandments internalized in the human heart; Coins represent material well being, as they would for Latimer, lower down. But they seem to differ when it comes to Swords, at least in these sermons. Neither Latimer nor Matthew 5:21-25 speaks of justified anger. But Christ elsewhere throws the moneychangers out of the temple and says he has come "not to bring peace, but the sword." How this attitude is to be reconciled with "turn the other cheek" is an ongoing theological issue. I do not know whether Latimer comments on it elsewhere or not. For Latimer's gospel, as for Plato and Etteilla, the "irascible" part of the soul would seem to be between the internalized Law (which Plato puts in the head) and the belly.

So it seems to me that the "game" I have sketched for Latimer is very much in the tradition, such as it is, of writers on suit symbolism, from the 15th century onwards. It is a tradition that extends even to the late 18th century. Etteilla's system, at least as it pertains to the symbolism of the suits, is not, as is sometimes maintained, simply his own invention, nor are the presentations of de Gebelin and de Mellet.