L'Amoureux VI - shoes, cherubs, choices, love and other things

[Diana]

The time has come,' the Walrus said,
To talk of many things:
Of shoes — and ships — and sealing-wax —
Of cabbages — and kings —
And why the sea is boiling hot —
And whether pigs have wings.'

I did a reading this morning and pulled L’Amoureux VI. The question was “when does self-sacrifice become a self-crucifixion”. The answer, if it interests you, is that if you don’t sacrifice with Love, then you may as well take a trip to the nearest hardware store to buy some planks and nails.

But this got me to observing the card, as part of my ongoing desire to see the TdM afresh, free as far as possible of preconceived interpretations and clichés. I’m thinking that sometimes we just regurgitate the old stuff without really thinking about it. And this way, a lot of error can creep in. That would be a pity. Maybe even a tragedy. God forbid that I contribute even unwittingly to a tragedy.

Now the most common interpretation of L’Amoureux VI is that this young man has a decision to make. “This is the card about choices” everyone says and nods wisely. I used to nod wisely like this too. For a long time. Sometimes even now I get caught again. It’s difficult to uncondition one’s mind. (Difficult but necessary.)

I agree that the young man, along with the cherub who takes up half of the card, is the central figure, so the card is all about these two characters. The two people on either side are important, but peripheral (that’s why they’re on the side).

Now here we have a man, visibly young, one could almost think he was just out of puberty. He never has trousers on and both in the Grimaud and the Noblet (both very authentic decks), he's not wearing shoes. Now I can assure you that no-one walked around barefoot in those days. Unless one was really really poor and part of the lumpenproletariat of the day. This guy is clearly not of that underclass. So it’s very odd.

Also he's not wearing a hat. No-one went outdoors without a hat !! Not someone of that class.

It makes one wonder if maybe he doesn’t have underwear on either and has just got caught in the act of sweet love by the older person (our left) who may be his mother, but I’m thinking more the chaperone of the young blonde lady. In the Grimaud, she looks very chaperone like. However, the older person may be a man and not a woman. And also there’s that most delightful theory by Alain Bocher (a very wise French tarologist, author, creator of the Tarot of La Rea, calligrapher and artist) who suggests that both are men. I posted about this once.

Now that the act has been consumed, he’s being encouraged (but nicely) by the older person to do the dutiful thing and to go and marry the young lady. This was of course the time of the l’Amour Courtois. The Troubadours sang and spoke poetry about L’Amour Courtois. The TdM Bateleur is a troubadour, in case you don’t know. (I'm basing my observations on the Grimaud. The Noblet, although authentic, I don't think is the canon of the TdM - but it's a hugely important deck.)

I really think he got caught in the haystack. If you zoom the picture real big, one can perhaps even see a bit of hay stuck in his hair.

They are both in love – that’s why the cherub is aiming its arrow at them. The arrow if you follow its trajectory of the Grimaud, falls right in the middle of them. The cherub wouldn’t take up half of the space if Love wasn’t the underlying theme of this card.

But where are the choices ? Where is this “crossroads that the Lover is at ?” I don’t see any crossroads at all.

So my conclusion is therefore that this card has nothing to do with choices. Whatsoever. I mean nada. The choice was made when the act of love was made. And that impulse came from above. It was a divine impulse – the Lover didn’t have any choice in the matter.

It seems to be a nice happy scene though. Except that I think the young man is feeling a bit foolish with only half of his clothes on. I think the only choice he has now is to get home as quickly as possible and to get dressed. And get ready for his marriage.

There’s of course a lot more we can discuss about this card. Like why the cherub in the Noblet is blindfolded and not in the later versions. I made this post as a sort of introduction.

[Aoife]

In a reading, L'Amoureux can lead me to widely varying interpretations depending on question and context. But essentially it concerns matters of Love. I can't, however, discard the notions of 'choice' and 'crossroads entirely. To explain...

On occasion, the Pope, the Lover and the Chariot form a progression, concerned with negotiating the challenges of puberty and young adulthood. Hence, education (of the acolytes), from filial to sexual love, to youthful arrogance of the charioteer. So sometimes the card speaks of transition - usually irreversible - from one state to another. Youthful... naive... immature [factually or disparagingly] are aspects that can come to the fore in a reading.

The central figure's feet point in opposite directions. Lovely Paula (firemaiden) would have told us just how difficult it is to maintain that position... and in the Grimaud the figure does (slightly) appear to be stepping towards the younger figure. He may have made a conscious choice, seemingly determined by free will. Maybe he lacks the maturity to understand the hormonal impetus and cupidity drives him towards sexual love. I'm very struck by the white faces and hands in the Noblet and Dodal, and expanse of flesh-coloured legs. There's also something very sexual [and gauche] about his extremely short tunic, barely covering his genitals. It all shouts 'sexual' yet completely lacking in eroticism. It's a fumbling young love.

There's something utterly daft about the cupid in the Noblet and Dodal. S/he's hopelessly ungainly, misshapen wings, blindfolded, so sometimes the arrow shoots unexpectedly wide of the mark. It all adds to the sense of capriciousness for me. That none of the characters see the cupid, can suggest events are determined by something outside of our field of vision.

So for me, L'Amoureux is a card of the early stages of change and progression. In just the same way as love itself is not a static event, but subject to change and transition.

[Merrick]

For me the blindfold on the Cupid in the Type I decks completely change the meaning of the card. It could be as simple as the old adage “love is blind” but I think that’s just the top layer. In the Type II decks, Cupid feels like an extension of the man, wavering between potential choices. His feet point both ways, indicating indecision. His upper body leans to the figure on our left, but Cupid’s arrow slants right, suggesting that the final decision lays with the younger maiden.

In the Type I decks, Cupid feels like an agent of the gods. The blindfold disconnects Cupid from the man as the choice is taken out of his hands entirely. The blindfold allows chance to enter the equation. While the man still may make a choice, his agency is not the only force at play here.

I prefer the Type I card. It’s a vital reminder that we’re all susceptible to the unexpected. It puts the archetypal moment in a bigger picture.