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.