You really should consider posting this in the thread on the forum, since you’re a member of the forum already… you’d probably get more interesting responses than the one I’m about to give.

I think it’s interesting to see yet another version of the image. I’ve seen similar versions for Hercules, and the Judgement of Paris.

Personally, I don’t find any need to see a direct relationship between the image you post and the one shown on the TdM Lovers card. One of the main aspects of the Lovers card is traditionally Cupid, which isn’t really present here. Nor do I see any reason to believe that alchemy was involved in the development of the images in the Tarot (of course, should you or someone else present a convincing case as such, I’m open to changing my mind about that!).

The Tarot of Jacques Vieville (circa 1650) is interesting because the sex of the figures is harder to determine. As seen in the upper right of this image: http://www.tarotpassages.com/vievill1.jpg . In this image, I can imagine a man presiding of the wedding of a couple, but others even see three men!

I tend to take the images at face value. I think what we have on the Lovers card of the TdM is pretty much a scene of love. It could be a marriage taking place, it could be a man being shot with an arrow and falling in love with someone else than his betrothed. It could be a choice between vice and virtue, or pleasure and virtue as stated in some cases, (but I don’t really tend to believe that as Cupid seems to me to be the main focus of the card).

Again, I think you’d get more “interesting” answers from the forum, and I hope you’ll post your question there too, here’s the thread should you choose to do so: http://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=39

best wishes,
robert

http://losttarot.com/bookcontent/Lovers_html_14c35a71.gif

Engraving 8 from, J.D. Mylius Philosophia reformata, Frankfurt, 1622.

Hermes unites the couple, but his dual nature is revealed by his forked beard and echoed in the Janus-faced head above the furnace. He smiles on the lovers, but knows that their union will precipitate their death.

Thus the cloud seems to refer to “precipitation”,
possibly the precipitation of the philosophers stone from solutions,
which can be also seen as the death of the two individuals, to create something new.
Answer: YES there definitely should be a cloud in the card.

Q: How does 1622 relate to the dates of the decks you are looking at?

Thanks!

I’ll let jmd comment. Sorry!

best,
robert

Zoya was mentioned by jmd above.

best,

dh

You might be interested in this site, and the forum there:
http://www.tarot-authentique.com/
Paul, a member here and on Aeclectic, set the site up to talk TdM, and he seems rather an advocate of Camoin and his method. There’s actually been rather a rush of posts on the subject on Aecletic lately.

Zoya? Do you mean the Zoni mentioned in the forum? The Zoni is Giacomo Zoni, 1780, Bologna. Or did I mention Zoya somewhere?

best,
robert

His English site gives more information, it looks like it has been redone with many new articles. Apparently more is coming soon. This is the link:

http://en.camoin.com

By the way, I could not find a reference to a Zoya deck. Could you tell me more about it?

best,

dh

There are a number of reasons why I think it may be a skull, (not the least because my favorite TdMs look to me as if they are shaped purposely that way. Might this be similar to what you mean by allowing the image to unveil itself? )

My understanding is that Judeo-Christian tradition holds it forbidden to depict the face of God, or to look directly at it. (Exodus 33:20 I believe) However, there are two ways to “get around this”: one is to depict an angel and the other a skull.

And, as I mentioned before, I am used to thinking of the Greek gods Eros and Thanatos as two sides of the same being, from my understanding that before he was reassigned the Cupid role as Aphrodite’s son, Eros was a more ancient, more primal life force archetype, in a dualistic pair with death. (I must have read this in something by Jung, have not researched this directly.)

Since so much of the TdM images are dualistic, it seems likely to me that this may be as well.

There is more, but for starters, that’s what I would point to.

regards,

dh

The Zoya, for example, has “Les Amoureux” – which I do not think justifies the title “Lovers” any more than an ‘incorrect’ translation does.

With regards to the skull, it is just plainly incongruous with the depiction and its general context – and is certainly something that appears to be seen more as a justification for a pre-assumed view of the imagery, rather than allowing the image to unveil itself (at least in my opinion).

I’d be interested to read of any reason you may have, doublehermes, for assuming a skull behind the cupid-like figure.

best,

jmd