The Lovers, and Polygyny?

[Kneeling]

Hello all!

 

There are the Lovers versions where there is a man with two women, and I've seen it interpreted as having to make a choice between them, like between love or money, or between piety or temptation, or simply a love triangle.

However, considering the influence of Jewish thought, and of course the influence of Scripture, have any of you come across historical connections of this card with multiple wives (polygyny)? A scene like the old Jewish blessing: "Yahweh make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel." - Ruth 4

 

The images are, left to right, from the Piedmontese Solesio 1865 deck, the Oswald Wirth 1889 deck, and some 1751 deck in the Ravensburg Museum Humpisquartier.

[November]

Hi, mmm yes, it may be that in the end you choose both, but generally with The Lovers the message is to understand who is whom you really love between two, who is whom you can't live without. 

[gregory]

51 minutes ago, November said:

Hi, mmm yes, it may be that in the end you choose both, but generally with The Lovers the message is to understand who is whom you really love between two, who is whom you can't live without. 

 

Um - as you are an English language teacher I have to take issue with that sentence. "The message is about understanding which of the two you can't live without, which you really love." The who/whom thing totally doesn't work there. I thought it worth mentioning...

 

But I agree with your view - I am very much with it being a card of choice, not of polyamory. I suppose it could indicate someone in the throes of an affair.... Keeping both peeople hanging - in which case I hope that arrow gets them in the heart. But not of choosing to have two spouses.

[November]

@gregory I was indeed unsure about "who" as relative pronoun here, but you confirmed me then it's wrong 😅 thanks for telling me. I used it, because I wanted to refer to a person, but surely "which" sounds better. 

[gregory]

I was just coming over to delete and send a message instead - I didn't wish to cause offence.  Whew ! ☮️The who/whom when involved with the verb to be is a particular nightmare !

[MuninnMissinHuginn]

4 hours ago, Kneeling said:

However, considering the influence of Jewish thought, and of course the influence of Scripture, have any of you come across historical connections of this card with multiple wives (polygyny)? A scene like the old Jewish blessing: "Yahweh make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel." - Ruth 4

This is a not answer to your specific question of polygamy - Is it possible to think of this card not in terms of the very narrow romantic love, but in a broader view of love and those who practice this version of love as lovers?  Think Kierkegaard and his views on love.  (Not that I know a ton about him). But this article came to mind when you asked the question…. Here.

[Guest]

To me, it has always felt like choosing between two lovers since the Lovers is more about choice to me versus romance, but I can definitely see this card being able to reflect polygamy as well

[gregory]

I've always seen it as choice - not necessarily involving lovers of any kind.

[Kneeling]

By the way, sorry about the images being so large - they're supposed to be in a line too. Ah well.

 

Some thoughts: the European/Roman view of polygyny, while influenced by Jewish thought, may have seen it as it is: an abundance of love, described by Solomon's beloved: "we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than yayin" - Song of Songs 1 "King Solomon made himself a palanquin of the wood of Lebanon. He made the pillars thereof of silver, the bottom thereof of gold, the covering of it of purple, the midst thereof being paved with love, for the daughters of Jerusalem. Go forth, O ye daughters of Zion, and behold king Solomon with the crown wherewith his mother crowned him in the day of his espousals, and in the day of the gladness of his heart." - Song of Songs 3

But then their Roman conditioning would assert itself and conclude that it would have to come down to a choice in the end - which I think is suggested in one woman being portrayed as less attractive, especially in older cards (perhaps also a nod to Rachel and Leah).

There is a choice in loving both as well however: Solomon chooses one as his best beloved, loving all the upright daughters of Jerusalem no less by it - similarly Christ chooses out of his many disciples seventy to bear his name and power abroad, out of them he chooses twelve, and of them he chooses three, and of the three John the Divine is "the disciple whom Jesus loved". Roman thought however says that one must deny love to one in order to love another.

 

Some have made a point of the card often being in fact titled "L'Amoureux" - "The Lover". This may have a bearing on the question, as it seems to me the term "Lover" naturally conjures scenes such as the above-mentioned, from the Song of Songs: a man ardently loving women, women being loved by and loving him. This in at least some ways is what would be understood by such a phrase as, "He is a lover."

 

3 hours ago, MuninnMissinHuginn said:

Think Kierkegaard and his views on love.  (Not that I know a ton about him). But this article came to mind when you asked the question…. Here.

I would have to disagree with Kierkegaard - or at least what the video says about his views. As one may guess from my interest in the Song of Songs, I don't see romantic, sexual love as narrow or inferior. If imitating Christ, Kierkegaard seems to have forgotten that Christ said we should love because love is justice. And of course a newborn child, being an innocent likeness of the Creator, deserves all the love and care of his parents - hence it would of course be great injustice to "leave him on a hillside to die". If you like we can continue this topic in PM or some other place. 🙂

[MuninnMissinHuginn]

As said by Gregory and Anesiadora, choices to be made…even possibly how to interpret the card. I understand what you are saying about Kierkegaard, it twas only a thought and observation. 🙂

[gregory]

Historically the tarot is based wholly in Christianity - which knocks out the old testament as a basis; it was "written" pre-Christ (and by men, which would explain any idea that there should be more than one wife, but nary a suggestion of more than one husband; men were never OK with that when creating las and rules.) I'm not aware of anything in the NT saying polygamy is OK, and certainly the Christian church has never been in favour of it. So given Tarot history I would say this view is vanishingly improbable.

[devin]

18 hours ago, Kneeling said:

Hello all!

 

There are the Lovers versions where there is a man with two women, and I've seen it interpreted as having to make a choice between them, like between love or money, or between piety or temptation, or simply a love triangle.

However, considering the influence of Jewish thought, and of course the influence of Scripture, have any of you come across historical connections of this card with multiple wives (polygyny)? A scene like the old Jewish blessing: "Yahweh make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel." - Ruth 4

 

The images are, left to right, from the Piedmontese Solesio 1865 deck, the Oswald Wirth 1889 deck, and some 1751 deck in the Ravensburg Museum Humpisquartier.

 

I actually live in a country where there's still a fair bit if polygamy around.

 

Anyway.

 

Yeah, ah, the earliest Lovers generally depict couples in various romantic/relationship situations, from dancing at a ball to performing marriage handshakes. When a third figure is introduced (excluding cupid, that is), it takes the form of a priest or older man, later an older woman. Following the iconic progression, I reckon the older figure is probably conferring some kind of familial blessing upon a marriage.

 

Choice is definitely a long-standing interpretation. Personally, I read the card as signifying coming together (as opposed to the Tower's coming apart). From coming together, I then derive commitment, and from commitment, choice, as to commit in some way implies a conscious narrowing of possibilities, choosing one thing over another.

 

Of course other interpretations are always possible. King of the swingers, man.

 

 

I believe him.

Edited November 7, 2022 by devin

[Raggydoll]

Gregory said it perfectly. A historical connection is incredibly improbable. 
 

I do know that some contemporary readers has interpreted the 3 of cups as sister wives, and I am sure that it’s possible to see plural marriages in many more cards than that. But since you asked about the actual history of tarot, I refer back to what Gregory wrote. 

[DanielJUK]

The pictures are not too big and in a line for me on the desktop version of this site @Kneeling 🙂  The forum will resize the post depending on what device size is used to view.

 

 

I am thinking of moving this thread to the Historical Tarot section because it's discussing the historic versions of the Lovers, would that be okay with everyone?

[gregory]

Well, y-e-s except that there is no historical; justification for seeing them as polygamy....

[Kneeling]

Personally I'm of the camp which sees the 22 Major Arcana corresponding to the Hebrew alphabet, the Sepher Yeṣirah, and the Qabbala. I know of the Egypt origin camp (which was definitely Charles Williams, who introduced me to tarot), and Bardic origin, but didn't know there was a camp that says they come entirely from the Roman Catholics.

 

Roman anti-polygynism was strong over 500 years before Christ, and was already a deep part of their anti-semitism when they crucified the King of the Jews. It was an even deeper part of their anti-semitism when they pinched a few names from the faith of Abraham and the first followers of the prophesied Messiah (who were all Jews), and used these adulterated names to dress up their Roman gods and Roman laws, and used the name of the God they "rescued from the barbarians" to condemn the ways of his own people - which are his own ways: as well as Father Israel with Rachel and Leah, it could also be a picture of Yahweh, the Prime Lover as he is the Prime Mover, with his wives Judah and Israel (from Jeremiah), or Jerusalem and Samaria (from Ezekiel), Israel/Samaria/Aholah being the elder, and Judah/Jerusalem/Aholibah being the younger.

 

Sorry if I sound rather sizzly at times. 😄🔥

 

I'm also of the camp which sees the Tarot de Marseille (and its two women) reflecting the oldest version of the cards - hence it would be one of the women being later changed into a priestly figure, perhaps as the non-mystical European veneer began to wash out the occult significance of its origins, which originally it disguised. Europeans who strayed from the Roman religion and its anti-semitism into Jewish mysticism would of course have to conceal their symbolism even more than occultists' wont. Which also means that the absolute history may be lost, and only the exploration of ambiguity left, which is alright with me, as I'm sure it is alright with most people on the forums from what I've seen so far. I was just wondering if anyone else has been looking into this perspective.

 

4 hours ago, devin said:

I actually live in a country where there's still a fair bit if polygamy around.

I've heard of several, haha, in spite of the engulfing West. There's a fair bit in America too, now that the whole enlightenment cultural prejudice of multiple wives being a "vestige of barbarism" is starting to wear off.

It is somewhat amusing to see female-chauvinists try to adopt anti-polygyny as part of their system, when it originated in Greek and Roman hatred of sex and hatred of women. They're shooting themselves in both their feet by it, as of course by definition more than two thirds of those practising polygyny are always women. Male-chauvinists used to be the ones touting anti-polygynism when male-chauvinism was the fad, saying such things as "who wants more women?", because a man can hardly "handle" one - dissing women as an unavoidable curse, and dissing themselves into the bargain I must say.

People should read the Song of Songs.

 

3 hours ago, Raggydoll said:

I do know that some contemporary readers has interpreted the 3 of cups as sister wives

Who knows? They may have drawn on older sources for the interpretation. Do you know if they were using a particular deck or following a particular tradition?

 

1 hour ago, DanielJUK said:

I am thinking of moving this thread to the Historical Tarot section because it's discussing the historic versions of the Lovers, would that be okay with everyone?

I wouldn't mind - its being a discussion of an individual card is why I put it here, but like you said it is a discussion of the card's history; I'm still quite new on the site, learning where to put things. 🙂 At one point I was actually going to put it in the Tarot de Marseille study group.

[gregory]

It was certainly not of Egyptian origin. And any Hebrew aspects were laid over an existing tradition by people with Hebrew interests. I strongly suggest you read a decent historical text - Paul Huson, for instance, or Dekker, or Cynthia Giles - she actually coves all suggestions quite dispassionately.

 

You know as well as I do that tarot was not around when Jesus was crucified; all that has nothing to do with it. But it grew in the 14th century from Christian tradition. Hence the Pope,the Last Judgement etc.   If you choose to look at it otherwise that's your privilege, but as tarot history it doesn't hold up.

 

This might help, if you want to understand the actual history.

https://tarot-heritage.com/history-4/tarot-history-chronology/

 

Kabbalah and Hebrew letters were overlaid by some individuals quite late in the day and have no historical background in the early decks you show as illustrations. All those showed up long before people started adding Hebrew letters etc. I think Eliphas Levi was first. Sure there are Hebrew references in Golden Dawn and Waite and Crowley - but all that came WAY later than the Marseilles decks you show in the thread.

[Misterei]

15 hours ago, gregory said:

Well, y-e-s except that there is no historical; justification for seeing them as polygamy....

I think there are two layers here.

 

Layer #1 ... if OP wants the Lovers to represent polygamy or polyamorous relationships ... why not? I generally get 3 wands or 3 cups for polyamorous folks ... but we all have our personal styles.

 

Layer #2: Historic Accuracy. The original Tarocchi of the 1490s Italy were ordered along Neo Platonic themes. The "Lover" had to choose between a normal life of sensuality with a pretty woman, or the heroic path symbolized by a woman crowned with Laurel for victory. He chooses Laurel and rides, afterwards, in his Chariot, triumphant.

 

The first 7 cards represented the Soul of Appetite. Lovers card shows the choice to conquer erotic appetites and become victorious. As a result of this victorious choice ... the soul acquires Virtues ... like Justice, Fortitude (Strength), and Moderation (Temperance).

 

Anyway, this is according to Robert Place books ... and it resonates for me with TdM and Tarocchi decks. RWS and Thoth of course are different systems ... yet both carry vestiges of the original TdM and Tarocchi decks in their linneage.

Edited November 8, 2022 by Misterei

[gregory]

6 hours ago, Misterei said:

I think there are two layers here.

 

Layer #1 ... if OP wants the Lovers to represent polygamy or polyamorous relationships ... why not? I generally get 3 wands or 3 cups for polyamorous folks ... but we all have our personal styles.

This ! - yes, sure, as I said - they want to take it that route that is their CHOICE, but there is no historical backing for it. As you say:

 

6 hours ago, Misterei said:

Layer #2: Historic Accuracy. The original Tarocchi of the 1490s Italy were ordered along Neo Platonic themes. The "Lover" had to choose between a normal life of sensuality with a pretty woman, or the heroic path symbolized by a woman crowned with Laurel for victory. He chooses Laurel and rides, afterwards, in his Chariot, triumphant.

 

Which is why I don't personally feel the discussion belongs in "historical". And what I take issue wit is the question:

 

On 11/6/2022 at 2:56 PM, Kneeling said:

However, considering the influence of Jewish thought, and of course the influence of Scripture, have any of you come across historical connections of this card with multiple wives (polygyny)? A scene like the old Jewish blessing: "Yahweh make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel." - Ruth 4

 

Jewish thought was not a part of the origins of Tarot. Fair enough that it was superimposed by Levi et al - but not in the TdM style cards used as illustrations. And those Hebrew letters people cite as evidence in the Waite Wheel (TARO/ROTA/TORA) - you do not find them on older decks.

THIS on the other hand has the works and could suggest all sorts...

 

: