L'AMOUREUX VI - and his lack of trousers

[Diana]

Always always, I have wondered why the guy in the card L'AMOUREUX is not wearing any trousers. In some versions, he's not wearing any shoes either.

L'Amoureux VI.jpg (29.89 KiB) Viewed 1560 times

I'm sure there is a significance. I've never come across any discussion about this - apart from people noting that he has no trousers and giving some rather vague rather nonsensical interpretations such as "it represents his innocence".

So what gives here ? I have no explanation and not even an inkling of an explanation.

Am hoping someone here may have some clues.

[fire cat pickles]

Represents innocence? Sounds like a load of bull. These are late medieval / early renaissance cards. Legs and calves were the ultimate standard in male beauty, masculinity and prowess. They were the 15th/16th version of the today's 19-inch, tattooed biceps.



Note: I did not crop this image.

I think the image is featured in a tunic in juxtaposition to the heightened femininity of his bride. I mean, how else would we know who is who and what is what in an age when everyone ran around in either potato sacks or woolen gowns <sarcasm>.

This card is about choices, juxtapositioning, oppositions, dilemmas, reality---life. And here it is, quite literally, out in the open for everyone to see. Sure, there is some vulnerability here, but innocence? No. I see a masculine display--and a ballsy display at that. This is bravery. Bravado even. Machismo, if we consider the historical context. It is in-your-face face virility. It's "come at me, bruh!" This kind of swagger makes more "take the bull by the horns" decisions. These characters (her, too, she's not dickin' around with her stylin'-n'-proflin', either--she's tall, she's vanilla and she's got big hair!) are ready to get on with life.

[Diana]

Represents innocence? Sounds like a load of bull. These are late medieval / early renaissance cards. Legs and calves were the ultimate standard in male beauty, masculinity and prowess. They were the 15th/16th version of the today's 19-inch, tattooed biceps.

I think the image is featured in a tunic in juxtaposition to the heightened femininity of his bride. I mean, how else would we know who is who and what is what in an age when everyone ran around in either potato sacks or woolen gowns <sarcasm>.

This card is about choices, juxtapositioning, oppositions, dilemmas, reality---life. And here it is, quite literally, out in the open for everyone to see. Sure, there is some vulnerability here, but innocence? No. I see a masculine display--and a ballsy display at that. This is bravery. Bravado even. Machismo, if we consider the historical context. It is in-your-face face virility. It's "come at me, bruh!" This kind of swagger makes more "take the bull by the horns" decisions. These characters (her, too, she's not dickin' around with her stylin'-n'-proflin', either--she's tall, she's vanilla and she's got big hair!) are ready to get on with life.

Now you've really taught me something here. Legs and calves were the biceps of today. That's very helpful what you brought to this topic of our Lover's bare legs. So would he be trying to impress here in a sensual sexual kind of way ? The swagger that you mention in your second paragraph.

It makes me think of the central character in a completely different light now. I always thought he looked a bit like a wimp. I've always wanted to shake him and say "for heaven's sake - stop just standing there - DO something". But now what you said about the legs makes me see it differently. He's doing his best to show himself in his best light to his betrothed. But in the end, it's not his choice. Cupid's arrow will do the deciding for him. So all this dithering is useless. People say this card is about choices, as you say. I don't think there's any choice when arrows from angels come onto the scene. I think whatever choice we may THINK we are taking was decided for us. I see this card as being more of "destiny" and "fate" than choice and free will.

[archimedes]

I was wondering if the lovers might have originally represented a specific pair of lovers (quite a few cards seem to have historical overtones) and came across this incredible portrait of Philip II and Mary
I suspect from the hairstyles in the card that one of the women is meant to be married, and the other unmarried. Is one a crown, the other curls or a round-shaped coronet? I see conflict between love and duty.

-

[_R_]

I am certain that a closer look at artwork from the middle ages-18th century would be telling in this respect. Tight breeches were the norm for men of a certain class at one time, but given the fact that the sex of the person on the left of the young Lover is disputed, and how both peripheral figures are wearing robes, it is likely that the lack of trousers points to his youth.

As to the headdresses, on some decks, we find the drawings more explicit, with the figure on the left wearing laurels, and that on the right a garland of flowers.

[Diana]

I am certain that a closer look at artwork from the middle ages-18th century would be telling in this respect. Tight breeches were the norm for men of a certain class at one time, but given the fact that the sex of the person on the left of the young Lover is disputed, and how both peripheral figures are wearing robes, it is likely that the lack of trousers points to his youth.

As to the headdresses, on some decks, we find the drawings more explicit, with the figure on the left wearing laurels, and that on the right a garland of flowers.

I mentioned once in another thread that Alain Bocher posits that the person on the left (our left) is male and is a town magistrate. He suggests that the person on the right of the young man (the younger figure) is also male and is wearing the robe of students of the arts and his is crown of flowers means that he was crowned at the Floral Games. It was customary to place around the forehead a band of golden flowers. In fact, it was their only prize.

(The Floral Games was a literary academy founded in Toulouse in the 12th Century by seven troubadours - the poems later were only allowed if they were in Occitanian.)

It's an interesting hypothesis. Although I don't really think this is the case. But questioning our now ingrained beliefs about the Tarot of Marseilles is always a good thing. After all, we'll never know all the secrets hidden in the Tarot of Marseilles, mostly because to get into the mindset of the people of the time is just impossible. We look it at with modern eyes, but people then had different eyes