This painting can be read in two ways. One interpretation suggests that the woman has tempted the man into a game of cards – a metaphor for vice – and the moment shown is when she trumps his trick and reaches out for her winnings. He is the dupe, and the smile on the face of the man in the centre would therefore be one of mockery.
It may be, however, that the deceit is working the other way. Perhaps the amorous opponent has allowed her to win in the hope of gaining her favour. The smile on the face of the observer would therefore be a knowing smirk.
The painting has a pair, Two Lovers at Table, depicting a similar setting in which the woman is clearly demonstrating her power over a lustful and gullible man.
This small parlour painting is one of a pair; the other is Two Lovers at Table. The theme of that painting is clear: it would have been considered an amusing play on the theme of women making fools of lustful men. But there are potentially two contrasting ways of reading the scene depicted here. Either it plays on the same theme as its pair, or it provides a counter view and the woman here is being portrayed as victim rather than temptress.
How can this painting be interpreted in such radically different ways? There are some elements which are clear. A game of cards was long associated with a metaphor for the pursuit of vice. In card games between men and women, the ace of hearts – with which she appears to have won the trick here – often appears because it is the most powerful card in the suit of hearts and indicates an amorous encounter. This theme is underlined by the onlooker’s pipe – a common phallic symbol – and the glowing tobacco, which was considered an aphrodisiac.
But one interpretation suggests that it is the woman who has tempted the man into a game of cards, and the moment depicted here is when she trumps his trick and reaches out for his money. The duck and the basket of eggs – which form a still-life composition neatly mirroring the one in the companion painting – suggests that he was on the way to, or just possibly from, market. He could be seen as the dupe losing his hard-earned cash, and the smile on the face of the man in the centre would therefore be one of mockery at the man’s gullibility.
It may be, however, that the deceit is working the other way. Perhaps the amorous opponent has allowed her to win in the hope of gaining her favour, or he is subtly rewarding her in advance for the favours he hopes she will confer on him. The smile on the face of the observer is therefore a knowing smirk. The woman laying claim to her winnings could therefore also be seen as an ironic touch: if she accedes to his desire then she will also be losing her virtue. Such an interpretation is reinforced by the dead duck and the eggs, which may have been interpreted as an allusion to sex. Certainly, as he ‘loses’ the game of cards, he is lifting the lid of the jug in his left hand, and open-necked jugs or flasks like this were associated with female genitalia; another features in the companion painting.
If we accept the latter interpretation then one of these two paintings illustrates the deceit of men, the other the deceit of women. If we see the woman as the trickster in both, then they become a warning to men against the manipulations of women. Of course, it may be that part of the fun of this painting is that the artist deliberately left the meanings unresolved, so that it could be interpreted in either way.
