Chapter 12 deals with the Tarot de Marseille. Why he discusses it before discussing Milan will become clearer when he discusses Milan. First he describes the first decks of the "final version" (p. 307):

. Il Tarocco di Marsiglia si evolvette in una versione definitiva, prodotta sia in Francia, in particolare a Marsiglia, sia in Svizzera. Non è possibile dire né quando questa versione definitiva abbia preso forma né in quale paese ciò sia avvenuto.

(The Tarot of Marseilles evolved into a final version, produced both in France, especially in Marseilles, and in Switzerland. It is not possible to say when this final version took shape or in what country this happened.)

There is also a "variant version" (p. 307):

.Nondimeno, anche un certo numero di carte francesi, in particolare quelle fabbricate a Lione e Avignone, presentano difformità di disegno dalla versione definitiva. La maggior parte di queste difformità rappresenta chiaramente uno stadio di sviluppo del modello anteriore alla versione definitiva.

(Nevertheless, a number of French cards, especially those manufactured in Lyon and Avignon, have differences in design from the final version. Most of these differences clearly represent a stage of development prior to the final version of the model.)

THE T DE M "FINAL" VERSION

He focuses on the "final version" first (p.308):

Il più antico esempio della versione definitiva del Tarocco di Marsiglia databile con sicurezza è un mazzo del 1709, opera di Pierre Madenié di Bigione 1. Poco dopo, nel 1718, un altro esempio fu realizzato da un fabbricante svizzero, Francois Héri di Soleure (Solothurn) 2. Un altro antico esempio della versione definitiva è un mazzo di Jean Francois Tourcaty figlio, attivo a Marsiglia dal 1734 al 1753, anche se le matrici potrebbero essere state disegnate da suo padre Francois Tourcaty, attivo in [end of 308]
___________________
1. [see below]
2. Esemplari dei mazzi di Madenié e di Héri sono conservati presso lo Schweizerisches Landesmuseum di Zurigo. C’è anche un esemplare del mazzo di Madenié, privo di tutti i trionfi, nel British Museum. Per illustrazioni di questo mazzo, si veda S.R. Kaplan, op. cit., pp. 212 e 315; per illustrazioni del mazzo di Héri, si vedano il catalogo Schweizer Spielkarten. della mostra al Kun-stgewerbemuseum di Zurigo, 1978, n. 142, e S. R. Kaplan, op. cit., p. 317.

The oldest example of the final version of the Tarot of Marseilles dated with certainty is a deck of 1709, the work of Pierre Madenié of Bigione (1). Soon after, in 1718, another example was made by a Swiss manufacturer, Francois Heri of Solothurn (2). Another early example of the final version is a deck of Jean Francois Tourcaty son, who worked in Marseille from 1734 to 1753, although the matrices may have been designed by his father Francois Tourcaty, active in that city from 1701 to the 1730s.
___________________
1. [see below]
2. 2. Examples of Madenié and Heri packs are stored in the Schweizerisches Landesmuseum in Zurich. There is also a copy of the deck by Madenié, devoid of all the triumphs, in the British Museum. For illustrations of this deck, see S. R. Kaplan, op. cit. [see below], p. 212 and 315; for illustrations of the Heri,deck, see the catalog Schweizer Spielkarten. of the exhibition at the Kunstgewerbemuseum of Zurich, 1978, n. 142, and S. R. Kaplan, op. cit., p. 317.

Footnote 1 is the most interesting part. It deals with alleged 17th century examples of the "final version". First he discusses a well known one with the notation "Chosson 1672." on the 2 of Coins:

1. Stuart R. Kaplan, in The Encyclopedia of Tarot, Vol, II, New York, 1986, pp. 310 e 312, ha preteso che un mazzo di Francois Chosson, un altro esempio tipico della versione definitiva, sia del 1672. È vero che la banderuola dei 2 di Denari reca, a quanto pare, la scritta «Francois chosson 1672»; è difficile interpretare la data altrimenti che 1672. Nondimeno, secondo Joseph Billioud, 'La Carte à jouer, une vieille industrie marseillaise', Marseille, n. 34-5, 1958, e l’elenco di maestri cartai francesi di H.-R. D’Allemagne, Les Cartes à jouer, Parigi, 1906, Francois Chosson è documentato come attivo a Marsiglia fra il 1734 e il 1736. Sul trionfo VII e sul 2 di Coppe compaiono le iniziali G S. Secondo D’Allemagne, un maestro cartaio Guillaume Sellon era attivo a Marsiglia dal 1676 al 1715, ed è possibile che egli disegnasse queste carte nel 1672. In tal caso il Tarocco di Marsiglia avrebbe raggiunto la sua forma definitiva nel penultimo quarto del Seicento; ma sembra strano il solo cambiamento del nome del fabbricante senza quello della data.

(1. Stuart R. Kaplan, in The Encyclopedia of Tarot, Vol. II, New York, 1986, p. 310 and 312, has proposed that a deck of Francois Chosson, another typical example of the final version, was in 1672. It is true that the 2 of Coins bears, apparently, the words 'Francois Chosson 1672'; it is difficult to interpret the data otherwise than 1672. Nevertheless, according to Joseph Billioud, 'La Carte à jouer, une vieille industrie Marseillaise', Marseille, n. 34-5, 1958 and the list of French master cardmakers of H.-R. D’Allemagne, Les Cartes à Jouer, Paris, 1906, Francois Chosson is documented as being active in Marseille between 1734 and 1736. On the seventh triumph and the 2 cups are the initials G S. According to D'Allemagne, a master cardmaker Guillaume Sellon was active in Marseille from 1676 to 1715, and it is possible that he had designed these cards in 1672. In this case, the Tarot of Marseilles would reach its final form in the penultimate quarter of the seventeenth century; but it seems strange to just change the name of the manufacturer without the date.)

Actually, I am not sure it is strange, as I was instructed once on Aeclectic when I attempted to say, based on Kaplan Vol. 2, when the French firm of Grimaud began business. http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.ph ... ost2802307 and posts following). According to Kaplan, vol. 2, p. 211, Martine Baudin of the J. M. Simon Company (current owner of Grimaud) says Grimaud started in 1748. But in fact it was Arnauld who started in 1748; Grimaud bought the Arnauld company in 1848 and established Grimaud in 1851. When a card maker takes over another's business, but considers that the company started whenever the original business started. he changes the name to his own but does not change the date on the designs he has inherited. In the U.S., a company can be "founded" in such a such a year even though it has gone through a number of owners--however the convention is that the name should stay the same. In France, among cardmakers at least, it is not like that. Having an old date is a matter of prestige it suggests a certain stability and ability to stay afloat, and therefore with a loyal clientele, through thick and thin. As to what Grimaud actually did with his 2 of Deniers, I don't know. I haven't found a historic Gimaud Tarot de Marseille to check.But I do know that on my 1969 Grimaud Grand Etteilla (put out by J. M. Simon) it says "Avec les Compliments de Grimaud France manufacteurs de Cartes a Jouer depuis 1790". whereas Corodil on Aeclectic informs me, surely correctly,

Baptiste Paul grimaud went to Paris at the beginning of the years 1840, he was then 23 years old. He creates Grimaud & Cie on the 12 June 1851 after he bought Arnould in 1848.

There is a thread on THF on the Chosson dating: .tarothistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=53, which has a picture of the relevant card..As Ross Caldwell points out (viewtopic.php?f=14&t=53#p459) there, the "Chosson" appears to be different from the other lettering on the card.
Dummett's footnote 1 also describes another allegedly 17th century deck:

Il Musée Paul Dupuy di Tolosa possiede un foglio non tagliato che presenta dodici figure, comprese la Regina di Denari, i Cavalieri di Coppe e Denari, e tutte e quattro figure di Spade, Il catalogo La Carte à jouer en Languedoc des origines à 1800 della mostra allestita al Musée nel 1971, sezione (1), 'Toulouse', n. 8, lo classifica come opera di un anonimo fabbricante di Tolosa del XVH secolo. La presenza delle Regine garantisce che il foglio era per un mazzo di tarocchi e i disegni delle figure ci permettono di supporlo un Tarocco di Marsiglia: tutte recano le loro denominazioni scritte in fondo alla carta. Tuttavia, la datazione è incerta. Il catalogo fa riferimento a un articolo di B. Dusan, ‘Cartes à jouer anciennes’, Revue archéologique du Midi, Voi. II, 1869, p. 120.

(The Musée Paul Dupuy in Toulouse has an uncut sheet that presents twelve figures, including the Queen of Coins, the Knights of Cups and Coins, and all four figures of Swords, The catalog La Carte à jouer en Languedoc des origines à 1800 of the exhibition at the Museum in 1971, section (1), 'Toulouse ', n. 8, ranks it as the work of an unnamed manufacturer in XVIIth century Toulouse. The presence of Queens ensures that the sheet was for a deck of tarot cards and the depictions of the figures allow us to suppose a Tarot of Marseilles: all bear their names printed at the bottom of the card. However, the date is uncertain. The catalog refers to an article by B. Dusan, 'Cartes à jouer anciennes', Revue archéologique du Midi, Vol II, 1869, p. 120.)

THE "VARIANT' VERSION OF THE T DE M

Dummett gives a long description of the standard features of the "final" version, which I will skip, because this version is well known. He then indicates deviations from this standard. Decks that have a preponderance of these features are what he calls the "variant" version (p. :.

Ci sono molti esempi del Tarocco di Marsiglia conformi in tutti i dettagli alla descrizione precedente.,Le due più importanti delle suddette variazioni dalla sua forma definitiva sono relative ai trionfi VI e XXI (l’Amore o lTnnamorato e il Mondo). Nella variante del VI, Cupido vola dalla parte destra della carta, con angolazione discendente, cosicché lo vediamo di spalle, anziché di fronte, anche se vediamo ancora il suo viso. Cupido porta una fascia intorno al capo, la quale in certi mazzi gli benda gli occhi. La figura del Mondo (XXI) è più tozza di quella della versione definitiva, e non ha la gamba sinistra incrociata dietro alla destra; il ginocchio sinistro è piegato molto leggermente. Non indossa la sciarpa, ma ha un mantello, aperto, gettato sulle spalle; le reni sono coperte da una cintura di foglie, e la mano sinistra, che regge un bastoncino, non è sollevata. Questi due tratti — le forme dei trionfi VI e XXI — sono senza dubbio anteriori ai tratti corrispondenti della versione definitiva.

Altre variazioni che accompagnano spesso queste due, ma si trovano anche in loro assenza, sono le seguenti:

(1) ci sono ‘goccioline’ sul Giudizio (trionfo XX), simili a quelle che compaiono sempre sul XVIHI e sul XVHI.

(2) Il fulmine sul XVI proviene da un quadrante nell’angolo della carta.

(3) Sul XV compaiono occhi sulle ginocchia del Diavolo, e un volto sullo stomaco; ha le reni cinte da un perizoma, ma le gambe sono dello stesso colore del torso.

(4) Il Papa (V) non tiene nella mano sinistra una triplice croce, bensì una verga sormontata da un globo e da un vessillo; ci sono tre cardinali.

(5) I Fanti non presentano, in basso, una scritta con i loro titoli.

Tutte queste variazioni sono probabilmente anche anteriori ai tratti corrispondenti della versione definitiva. Benché i mazzi che non rappresentano quella versione non siano di un tipo altrettanto rigido, ma presentino spesso una scelta di tratti alter-[enf of 317]nativi, si può parlare di una variante della versione definitiva, comprendente tutti i mazzi che riuniscono parecchie delle variazioni suddette; l’espressione ‘versione variante’ si userà d’ora in avanti in questo senso. L’inizio del XVIII secolo sembra essere uno stadio di transizione nell’evoluzione del Tarocco di Marsiglia. Nacquero nuove forme e i fabbricanti scelsero ora queste, ora quelle.

There are many examples of the Tarot of Marseilles that conform in all details to the description above, The two most important of these changes in its final shape are related to triumphs VI and XXI (Love or the Lover and the World). In the variant of the VI, Cupid flies from the right side of the card, with downward angle, so that we see him from behind, instead of in front, although we still see his face. Cupid wears a band around his head, which in some decks blindfolds him. The figure of the World (XXI) is more stocky than the final version, and did not cross her left leg behind her right; the left knee is bent very slightly. It does not wear the scarf, but it has an open mantle thrown over her shoulders; the abdomen is covered by a girdle of leaves, and her left hand. not raised. holds a stick. These two sections - the forms of triumphs VI and XXI - are undoubtedly older than the corresponding sections of the final version.

(Other changes that often accompany these two, but are also in absence, are as follows:

(1) there are 'droplets' on Judgment (triumph XX), similar to those that always appear on XVIII and XVIIII.

(2) The lightning on XVI comes from a quadrant in the corner of the card.

(3) On XV eyes appear on the knees of the Devil, and a face on the stomach; has the abdomen enclosed by a thong, but the legs are the same color as the torso.

(4) The Pope (V) does not hold in his left hand a triple cross, but a rod surmounted by a globe and a banner; there are three cardinals.

(5) The Jacks do not have at the bottom an inscription with their titles.

All of these variations are probably also older than the corresponding sections of the final version. Although the decks that do not represent that version are not of an otherwise rigid type, these often present a choice of alternative features, if one can speak of a variant of the final version, including all the packs that combine several of these variations; the expression 'variant version' will be used henceforth in this regard. The beginning of the eighteenth century seems to be a transitional stage in the evolution of the Tarot of Marseilles. There came new forms, and manufacturers chose now these, now those.)

Then he describes the oldest examples of the "variant" (p. 318):

L’unico esempio del Tarocco di Marsiglia sicuramente databile al XVII secolo è un mazzo di Jean Noblet, un fabbricante la cui attività a Parigi fra il 1659 e il 1664 è attestata dagli archivi6. Questo mazzo è di dimensioni eccezionalmente piccole (mm. 92 x 55). Il solo esemplare sopravvissuto, cui mancano soltanto cinque carte numerali di Spade, si trova nella Bibliothè-que Nationale di Parigi; il nome del fabbricante è stampato sulla banderuola a forma di S del 2 dì Denari e sul pannello del 2 di Coppe. Come indicano i trionfi VI e XXI, il mazzo rappresenta la versione variante piuttosto che quella definitiva, che forse non era ancora nata; un tratto insolito è la scritta «la mort» sul trionfo XIII.

Oltre al mazzo di Noblet, uno dei più antichi della versione variante è opera di Jean Dodal di Lione, attivo in quella città dal 1701 al 1715. Questo mazzo, un esemplare del quale è alla Bibliotheque Nationale e un altro al British Museum, reca su parecchie carte la scritta «f.p. le trenge», cioè «faits pour Lé-trange» (fatto per l’esportazione). Nel mazzo di Dodal, come in parecchi altri, il Matto porta la scritta «le fol» anziché ‘le mat’. Perlomeno nel XVIII e XIX secolo il Matto era sempre chiamato ‘il Folle’ dai giocatori piemontesi e *le Fou’ da quelli savoiardi. Sembra probabile, dunque, che il mazzo di Dodal fosse destinato alla Savoia; ma non possiamo concludere che tutti i mazzi nei quali il Matto porta la scritta «le fol» o «le fou» avessero la stessa destinazione. Un tale mazzo, che esemplifica perfettamente la versione variante del Tarocco di Marsiglia, è quello prodotto nel 1713 da Jean-Pierre Payen (1683-1757). Payen nacque a Marsiglia, ma si stabilì nel 1710 ad Avignone, dove rimase fino alla morte.

(The only example of the Tarot of Marseilles definitely dated to the seventeenth century is a deck of Jean Noblet, a manufacturer whose business in Paris between 1659 and 1664 is attested by the archives (6). This deck is exceptionally small sized (92 x 55 mm). The only surviving example, lacking only five pip cards of Swords, is in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris; the manufacturer's name is printed on a banderole in the shape of an S on the 2 of Coins and a panel on the 2 of Cups. As illustrated by triumphs VI and XXI, the deck is the variant version rather than the final one, which perhaps was not yet born; an unusual feature is the inscription "la mort" on triumph XIII.

In addition to the deck of Noblet, one of the oldest in the variant version is the work of Jean Dodal of Lyon, active in that city from 1701 to 1715. This deck, one copy of which is in the Bibliotheque Nationale, and another in the British Museum, bears on several cards marked «f.p. le trenge», that is, “faits pour Lé-trange” (made for export). In the Dodal deck, as in many others, the Fool bears the words "le fol 'rather than 'le mat'. At least in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Fool was always called 'il Folle' by players in Piedmont and ‘le Fou' by Savoyards. It seems likely, therefore, that the Dodal deck was destined for Savoy; but we can not conclude that all the decks in which the Fool bears the words "le fol" or "le fou" had the same destination. Such a pact that perfectly exemplifies the variant version of the Tarot of Marseilles, is one produced in 1713 by Jean-Pierre Payen (1683-1757). Payen was born in Marseille, but in 1710 he settled at Avignon, where he remained until his death.
________________
6. See the catalog Tarot, jeu et magie, Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, 1984 n. 35, pp. 65-6, and H.-R. D'Allemagne, Les Cartes à jouer, Vol II, Paris, 1906, p. 78 and 619.

The Noblet triumphs are at http://www.tarot-history.com/Jean-Noblet/index.html. Flornoy on that site dates the cards to c. 1650, while the documentation indicates 1659 as the earliest for him as a master cardmaker. I do not know why Florny has the earlier date. The Dodal is at http://www.tarot-history.com/Jean-Dodal/. The 1713 Payen deck is described at http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/Jean-Pie ... arot.There has been discussion since Dummett about the relationship of these two cardmakers, but I cannot recall where.

I need to point out that this characterization of the differences between the "final" and the "variant" is somewhat misleading in that there are other interesting details that depart from the "final" For example, the Dodal's name for the Popess is "La Pances". Noblet, like the Minchiate, has a man and a woman on the Sun card--but their postures are more like the "standard" model. Also, the Noblet Pope does not have three cardinals, nor a staff with a globe or a banner, but rather a bishop's crozier..There are many other small variations. These details may be important in tracing the development of the Marseille out of the uncut sheet and the cards that were found in Milan, which he will discuss in the next chapter.

Dummett says, "final version" represents a "later stge of development" than that of the "variant". However the style is very close to that of Baldini in Florence (see my post at viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1004&p=14956&hilit=Baldini#p14956) or of the Cary Sheet. And the "final version" is remarkably consistent afte a particular point. It does not appear that most manufacturers chose "now these, now those" features out of a variety of things that came before. It is true that two examples we have of the "variant" come before that of the "final". But that might be a function of the place that preserved them--Paris and Lyon vs. Marseille--than anything else. It seems to me impossible to say which came first, without a more detailed analysis than Dummett gives in this chapter. However, the Milan cards of the next chapter may be useful in tht regard, so I will wait before passing judgment.

THE TAROT OF BESANCON

There is also the Tarot of Besançon, which Dummett finds more "fluid and lively". The main difference is that Juno and Jupiter replace the Popess and Pope. Also, instead of "le Mat", the Fool is "le Fol" and sometmes the Hermit is called "le capucin". What he says about the origin of the Tarot of Besançon is of some interest. First he reviews where it was made and when (p. 319f):

Nel XVIII secolo, era prodotto in Svizzera, Alsazia e Germania. In Svizzera, Francois Héri di Solothum — il fabbricante dell’esempio del 1718 della versione definitiva del Tarocco di Marsiglia — fabbricò, probabilmente intorno al 1725, un mazzo non datato che esemplificava il Tarocco di Besançon 10. Il più antico mazzo di questo tipo databile con sicu-[end of 219]rezza è opera di Nicolas Francois Laudier di Strasburgo; i nomi del fabbricante e della città sono scritti sul 2 di Coppe e sul 2 di Denari, le iniziali del fabbricante sul 2 di Denari, la data 1746 e il nome dei rincisore (Pierre Isnard) sullo scudo del Carro, e le sue iniziali sul Cavaliere di Spade 11. Un esempio probabilmente più antico fu fabbricato da Johann Pelagius Mayer di Costanza 12. C.P. Hargrave lo datò al 1680, e asserì che Mayer era stato attivo a Costanza nell’ultima parte del XVII secolo 13. Il dottor Max Ruh ha dimostrato che si tratta di un errore: Mayer nacque infatti a Kempten nel 1690, divenne cittadino di Costanza nel 1720 ed è registrato in documenti del 1730 e del 177714. Un altro esempio fu fabbricato da Neumur di Mannheim verso il 1750, e un altro ancora da G. Mann di Colmar, datato 1752 15. Nella seconda metà del secolo, esempi del Tarocco di Besançon, particolarmente di origine svizzera, diventano frequenti.
_________________
10. Si veda il catalogo Schweizer Spielkarten, p. 143.
11. Si veda Tarot, jeu et magie, n. 44, pp. 74-5. Un esemplare completo è nel Musée des Arts et Traditions Populaires di Parigi.
12. Ce ne è un esemplare nel Museo di cane da gioco dell’United States Playing Card Company di Cincinnati, e un altro nella collezione privata dì Albert Field di Astoria, New York City. Per illustrazioni, si vedano Catherine Perry Hargrave, A History of Playing Cards, New York, 1966 (ristampa), p. 259 e di fronte a p. 260, e S.R. Kaplan, The Encyclopedia of Tarot, New York, 1979, p. 136.
13. C.P. Hargrave, op. cit. New York, 1930, pp. 262, 266.
14. Cfr. Tarot, jeu et magie, n. 45, p. 75.
15. Un esemplare del mazzo di Neumur è al British Museum, e uno del mazzo di Mann al Musée des Arts et Traditions Populaires.

(In the XVIIIth century, it was produced in Switzerland, Alsace and Germany. In Switzerland, Francois Heri of Solothum - the manufacturer of the example of 1718 the final version of the Tarot of Marseilles - made, probably around 1725, an undated deck that exemplified the Tarot Besançon (10). The oldest dating of deck of this type with security is the work of Nicolas Francois Laudier of Strasbourg; the names of the manufacturer and the city are written on the 2 of Cups and 2 of Coins, the initials of the manufacturer on the 2 of Coins, the date 1746 and the name of the incisor (Pierre Isnard) on the shield of the Chariot, and his initials on the Knight of Swords (11). One example was probably the oldest manufactured by Johann Pelagius Mayer of Constance (12). Č.P. Hargrave dated it 1680, and asserted that Mayer had been active in Constance in the latter part of the seventeenth century (13). Dr. Max Ruh has shown that it is a mistake: in fact, Mayer was born in Kempten in 1690, became a citizen of Constance in 1720, and is recorded in documents of 1730 and 1777 (14). Another example was manufactured by Neumur Mannheim around 1750, and another by G. Mann of Colmar, dated 1752 (15). During the second half of the century, examples of the Tarot of Besançon, particularly of Swiss origin, become frequent.
____________________
10. See the catalog Schweizer Spielkarten, p. 143.
11 See Tarot, jeu et magie, n. 44, p. 74-5. A complete example is in the Musée des Arts et Traditions Populaires in Paris.
12. There is a specimen in the Museum of playing cards of the United States Playing Card Company of Cincinnati, and another day in the private collection of Albert Field in Astoria, New York City. For illustrations, see Catherine Perry Hargrave, A History of Playing Cards, New York, 1966 (reprint), p. 259 and facing p. 260, and S.R. Kaplan, The Encyclopedia of Tarot, New York, 1979, p. 136.
13. C. P. Hargrave, op. cit.. New York, 1930, pp. 262, 266.
14..See Tarot, jeu et magie, n. 45, p. 75.
15. A copy of a deck of Neumur is in the British Museum, and one of the deck of Mann at the Musée des Arts et Traditions Populaires.

He working his way gradually toward a conclusion (p. 322f):

I fabbricanti di carte alsaziani non servivano solo la loro zona, ma esportavano anche in Germania; naturalmente, l’Alsazia era divenuta parte della Francia solo nel 1648. Attraverso lo studio delle aree svizzere in cui erano prodotti mazzi del Tarocco di Marsiglia e del Tarocco di Besangon, Sylvia Mann ha dimostrato che è molto probabile che il primo fosse prodotto [end of 322] per i Cantoni di lingua francese e il secondo per quelli di lingua tedesca. Inoltre, si conoscono pochissimi esempi tedeschi di veri e propri Tarocchi di Marsiglia, poiché in Germania i giocatori si servivano soprattutto del Tarocco di Besangon. Sembra pertanto che fossero i cattolici df lingua tedesca ad avere delle riserve sulla presenza del Papa e della Papessa e a fornire quindi l’occasione per l’invenzione del cosiddetto Tarocco di Besançon.

(The manufacturers of Alsatian cards not only served their area, but also exported to Germany; of course, Alsace had become part of France only in 1648. Through the study of the areas in which the Swiss areas produced Marseilles Tarot decks and the Tarot of Besancon, Sylvia Mann has shown that it is very likely that the first were produced [end of 323] for the French-speaking cantons and the second for those of the German language. Besides, we know very few examples of real German Tarot de Marseille, as in Germany, the players made use mainly of the Tarot of Besançon. It seems, therefore, that they were German Catholics having reservations about the presence of the Pope and of the Popess, thus providing an opportunity for the invention of the so-called Tarot of Besançon.)

That the tarot spread from French-speaking to German-speaking areas is evident from the fact that in Gerrmany the tarot invariably had French titles.

In the next chapter Dummett returns to what he considers the home of the C order that the Tarot de Marseille exemplifies, Milan.

MikeH wrote:

Dummett wrote:(The manufacturers of Alsatian cards not only served their area, but also exported to Germany; of course, Alsace had become part of France only in 1648. Through the study of the areas in which the Swiss areas produced Marseilles Tarot decks and the Tarot of Besancon, Sylvia Mann has shown that it is very likely that the first were produced [end of 323] for the French-speaking cantons and the second for those of the German language. Besides, we know very few examples of real German Tarot de Marseille, as in Germany, the players made use mainly of the Tarot of Besançon. It seems, therefore, that they were German Catholics having reservations about the presence of the Pope and of the Popess, thus providing an opportunity for the invention of the so-called Tarot of Besançon.)

That the tarot spread from French-speaking to German-speaking areas is evident from the fact that in Gerrmany the tarot invariably had French titles.

In the next chapter Dummett returns to what he considers the home of the C order that the Tarot de Marseille exemplifies, Milan.

Depaulis later had far better information to the case. I once tried to capture this in the jungle of ...
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=821&p=11904&hilit= ... urg#p11904

Dummett's conclusion "It seems, therefore, that they were German Catholics having reservations about the presence of the Pope and of the Popess" is strange, as it was my impression, that the Tarot de Besancon was chosen by Protestants (or by cardmakers, who sold it to Protestants).

The region around Nidwalden had strong Catholicism. They had decks with pope and popess. Other Swiss regions - more protestant - selected the Tarot Besancon style.

Thanks for raising this point, Huck. It deserves more discussion.

Dummett is not maintaining that Catholic regions in general preferred decks without the Pope and Popess. He is maintaining the converse, that regions with tarot but without the Pope and Popess were regions with large Catholic populations. He is maintaining that the Bescanson was not as a rule exported to regions that were mostly Protestant.

The Besancon seems to have been popular in border areas, where there were both Protestants and Catholics. Dummett is not contradicting that. He does not speculate on why that was. For myself, I would imagine Catholics there would have been sensitive about the Pope and his mistresses, or Pope Joan, or the Church as "whore of Babylon", and preferred not to be made fun of by Protestants, who could use such decks as propaganda. But that is just a guess.

Looking at your quotes from Depaulis, all I see him saying was that the Besancon probably originated in Strasbourg. Strasbourg was mainly Catholic, I think. So was Alsace generally. I couldn't find any facts in that thread contradicting Dummett.

Then we find decks without the Pope and Popess in Brussels, which was Catholic. And around Constance, which was Catholic. All this confirms Dummett in later history. But like Alsace, these are places that are close to Protestant territory.

How many examples do you have of decks without Popes and Popesses being used in mainly Protestant areas?

You've to read the Depaulis article first.

Researching the cities mentioned in connection with the Besancon--Strasbourg first then Augsburg, Ulm, Konstanz--I see that although Strasbourg was officially Catholic at the time of the first Besancon (c. 1700?), after the French take-over in 1761 and the recovacation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, there was a strong tradition of Protestantism in the city. Since tarot cardmakers are not recorded coming to Strasbourg until after 1685, they may have come for the new Catholic market, as Protestants didn't have a tradition of playing the game. Perhaps Juno and Jupiter were chosen so that Protestants and Catholics could play tarot together without insulting each other's religions.

When I look at the other places associated with the Besancon--Augsburg, Ulm, perhaps Konstanz--I see much the same thing. Ulm was Protestant early on, but was controlled by different Catholic powers in the early 18th century (France and Austria). Konstanz, Protestant early on, was then controlled by Austria. Augsburg had a majority Protestant population in 1555, But Bavaria (and so Augsburg) was a center of the Catholic counter-reformation in the early and mid 18th century.

So, yes, Dummett's contention that you challenged him on, Huck, is groundless without further evidence. One basis that Dummett might have had is something he mentions in the next chapter, on the Lombard tarot. He talks about decks on the Lombard model being produced in Austria at the end of the 28th century. One example, marked «in brag» ("in Prague") now in the Leber collection, has a note attached. I will let Dummett tell the tale (p.348) :

Sulla nota si legge «Un raro mazzo di Tarocco per il quale il fabbricante fu decapitato a causa di una figura satirica ritrattavi'» e quella che potrebbe essere un’aggiunta posteriore fa specifico riferimento al trionfo n. n, cioè alla Papessa19. Il catalogo attribuisce il mazzo al XVII secolo, ma questo non può essere vero: sicuramente non può essere anteriore al 1760. Né può essere vera la storia dello sfortunato fabbricante: nemmeno nel XVH secolo un sospetto (infondato) di intenzione satirica nei confronti della, Chiesa avrebbe potuto giustificare una punizione così severa. La storia illustra, tuttavia, fino a che estremi si poteva pensare arrivasse l’ostilità per la presenza della Papessa su una carta da gioco. Quella figura sarebbe stata del tutto sconosciuta a giocatori dell’Europa Centrale, che erano abituati al modello del Tarocco di Besancon, con Giove e Giunone al posto del Papa e della Papessa.
_____________________
19 Nell’originale tedesco, la scritta è: «Eine seltne Tarock-Karte, darum der Verfertiger wegen einer dazu gemalten satyrischen Figur enthauptet worden», e di sotto «N°. II / Fig: N°: II».

(On the note is written: "A rare deck of Tarot for which the manufacturer was beheaded because of a satirical figure portrayed'", and what could be a later addition makes specific reference to triumph II, that is, to the Popess (19). The catalog attributes the deck to the seventeenth century, but this cannot be true; surely it cannot be earlier than 1760. Nor can the story of the unfortunate manufacturer be true; not even in the XVIIth century could suspicion (unfounded) of satirical intention in respect of, Church justify a punishment so severe. The story illustrates, however, to what extremes hostility to the presence of the Popess on a playing card came to be thought. That figure would have been completely unknown to players in Central Europe, who were used to the Tarot of Besancon model, with Jupiter and Juno in place of the Pope and of the Popess.
_______________________
19. In the original German, the words are: 'Eine seltne Tarock-Karte, darum der Verfertiger wegen der einer dazu Gemalten satyrischen Figur enthauptet worden', and further on, 'N°. II / Fig N°: II.")

I don't know if that last is true, about players in Central Europe (i.e. Austria-Hungary) having only the Besancon. If so, that, too, would support his point (along with the note about the "beheading").

It would also help if we knew what tarot decks, if any, looked like in Protestant-controlled, Protestant majority parts of Germany at that time.

The only Depaulis article I currently know of on the subject, Playing Card 39:2, pp. 64-73, has very little on the Besancon specifically that I could see, just one paragraph on p. 67, mentioning only Augsburg 1720-25 and Ulm c. 1735. Your earlier post that you linked to seems to be something else by Depaulis on the subject, perhaps another installment, but if so I don't know it.

mikeh wrote: So, yes, Dummett's contention that you challenged him on, Huck, is groundless without further evidence.

I don't challenge Dummett, who made conclusions on the base of a specific state of research, a longer time ago. The state of research naturally improves, and earlier evaluations loose their relevance, when such improvements occur, that's all.

I naturally am more interested in the state of research in 2014. Dummett had no chance to study Pratesi's developments in 2012-14 and also not the Esch report 2013, for instance.

It would also help if we knew what tarot decks, if any, looked like in Protestant-controlled, Protestant majority parts of Germany at that time.

The big German/Austrian wave of creativity with Tarock cards after 1750 is well known.
Animal Tarock for instance.


Das Sachsentarock von Breitkopf.

You just have to visit our Playing Card Museum.
Type "site:a.trionfi.eu tarock" in the address field

I am talking about before and other than the animal, etc., decks, which abandon the usual subjects. We are talking about Besancon vs. Tarot de Marseille, with Popess/Pope vs. Juno/Jupiter. Dummett asserts over and over again that the Besancon was dominant in Central Europe. He gives no documentation that I can find (I spent a very unproductive hour tonight looking at every index item I could think of in Game of Tarot and coming up with nothing, except one assertion, undocumented, that French-speaking Protestant cantons in Switzerland largely used the Tarot de Marseille and German-speaking Catholic ones largely the Tarot of Besancon.) I for one am challenging Dummett here. What was his evidence at the time he was writing? What evidence was there then? What producers when, and for whom?

And then, what has changed in the documentation since Dummett, regarding those questions. Depaulis has some new things, but not on this issue that I have yet found. If Pratesi or Esch have something on these questions, what is it?

mikeh wrote:I am talking about before and other than the animal, etc., decks, which abandon the usual subjects. We are talking about Besancon vs. Tarot de Marseille, with Popess/Pope vs. Juno/Jupiter. Dummett asserts over and over again that the Besancon was dominant in Central Europe. He gives no documentation that I can find (I spent a very unproductive hour tonight looking at every index item I could think of in Game of Tarot and coming up with nothing, except one assertion, undocumented, that French-speaking Protestant cantons in Switzerland largely used the Tarot de Marseille and German-speaking Catholic ones largely the Tarot of Besancon.) I for one am challenging Dummett here. What was his evidence at the time he was writing? What evidence was there then? What producers when, and for whom?

And then, what has changed in the documentation since Dummett, regarding those questions. Depaulis has some new things, but not on this issue that I have yet found. If Pratesi or Esch have something on these questions, what is it?

Depaulis assumes, that the Tarot de Besancon developed in Strassburg and spread from here to Germany and Switzerland.

I made once this:



Prohibitions of Troggn were known from Geneve (Calvinism) and Zürich (protestant). The oldest allowance happened around Nidwalden, which is said to have kept always Pope and Popess as part of th game. The region of Nidwalden was mostly the region, where papal Swiss guard came from and the region were very catholic. The papal Swiss guard had died in 1527 and was restored after a period of 20 years, as far I remember. The first note of the game in allowed form happened 1572 (as far I remember).

So one has to conclude, that the introduction of the game to Switzerland followed retired Swiss guards, which returned home.
Around 1572 the Swiss guards at the French court had gained in importance. They played a prominent role in the bloody night of Bartholomy (1572). The control of French Tarot dates came to the result, that the big start of Tarot in France took place with king Henry III in 1574, so soon after the Swiss guards had gained influence. Before there are French notes about Tarot, but they had been often Italy related, so just a foreign influence.

The years of 1572-75 saw also many earthquakes around Ferrara, which seems to have been till then the place of strong Tarocchi production (following the data known from a business that happened 1559 in Rome; a Depaulis article). A great number of the decks were then from Ferrara. The earthquakes might have caused a stop of the Ferrarese production.
Henry III had visited Ferrara 1574, when returning from Poland to become king in France instead of becoming king of Poland. After this Tarot exploded in France as a definitely strong game (many notes). Italia customs spread at the French court then.

Around 1580 Swiss guards and also Tarot came to Savoy (Tarotica text).

Savoy had trouble with Calvinistic Geneve. Geneve prohibited the game.

Well, this are my conclusions, not that from Depaulis.

Henry IV of Navarra reestablished the close Italian connection, when he married Maria of Medici. Henry IV was killed and the Italian influence increased with Maria as ruling King's mother. So likely Tarot had a very golden time then, the climax likely in 1615, when the young king had been declared as grown-up.
Louis XIII didn't like the Italian influence. This is likely already the start of the decline of the Tarot fashion in France with a final fall, observed by Depaulis and Dummett much later. Playing cards played likely a big role at the court of Louis XIV (it's said, that he had every week playing card events to keep the nobility under control and close to the court), but not with Tarot cards.

Depaulis observed no playing card producer in Strassburg, when Strassburg did fall in French hands (1681). Louis XIV took Strassburg by force in 1681 in the mid of peace, when Vienna was occupied to defend against the Osmans.

The peace of Rijswijk 1697 left Strassburg (a strong Protestantism in long history) in French hands. Protestants weren't allowed to get public offices, but at least Protestants were free to stay (but Catholicism was promoted).

Depaulis gives data to a new playing card production in Strassburg, inclusive of Tarot card experimets. In that period there was a strong military competition in Europe about the Spanish succession (1701-1714).

Louis XIV possibly was then more open to Tarot, as he desired to win Italian sympathies as a political aim (so we have in this time the interest of Mnestrier in Tarot, 1704). Successless, as earlier Italian properties of Spain went to Austria finally, not to France or the new Spain. But he reached, that Spain got a French king.

Strassburg had a special position. In matter of customs it belonged still to Germany, not to France. So there were ways to trade playing card products to Eastern countries. The custom frontier to Frane did run outside of Strassburg. They even had their own money till 1708. The population still spoke German.

It seems, that the Tarot de Besancon style was a way to have a Tarot, which somehow was acceptable also to Protestants.

Esch spoke about matters in 15th century. Franco Pratese has developed in the recent years a lot of data in Tuscany during 17th-19th century, which somehow make clear, that there was more Minchiate in Italy than Tarochi at specific times.

Thanks, Huck. I still think your conclusion

It seems, that the Tarot de Besancon style was a way to have a Tarot, which somehow was acceptable also to Protestants.

is not justified.

In your account I see one apparently new fact about Catholics and the Pope/Popess:

The oldest allowance happened around Nidwalden, which is said to have kept always Pope and Popess as part of the game. The region of Nidwalden was mostly the region, where papal Swiss guard came from and the region were very catholic. The papal Swiss guard had died in 1527 and was restored after a period of 20 years, as far I remember. The first note of the game in allowed form happened 1572 (as far I remember).

But 1572 is too early to be of relevance to the issue of where and why the Tarot of Besancon vs. the Tarot of Marseille was chosen for the game. However it is relevant to another issue, namely, what the deck looked like in Rome in 1572. If the papal Swiss guard were using decks with both the Pope and the Popess, that goes against every other piece of evidence known about Rome at that time. The Strambotto list, c. 1500, leaves out the Popess. The Colonna deck has a Sultan (and presumably a Sultaness). The Minchiate has three "papi" with Imperial attributes. So I would very much like your source for Nidwalden, with a page number (because I tend to miss things otherwise), as I did not see it in the Deapaulis article you cited.

The other relevant facts in Depaulis are already given by Dummett, except that Depaulis names the producers and specific dates. He is documenting further (with footnotes to other secondary sources, which I presume will have primary sources) what Dummett merely mentioned..

I finally found where Dummett gives specifics, at least as to cities. He mentions Strasbourg production of the Tarot of Besancon in the early 18th century, p. 227 of Game of Tarot. Dummett also mentions in the same place Kempten, Augsburg, Mannheim and Colmar. These, are all places with a strong history of Protestantism but which were by the beginning of the 18th century controlled by Catholic powers.

Depaulis says, regarding the origin of the Tarot of Besancon, after discussing the various producers (p. 77):

Thus it is not unreasonable to imagine that Louis de Laboisse made his Tarot pack soon after his arrival in Strasbourg, around 1710. We may even hypothesize that he first made a standard 'Tarot de Marseille' but that the two trumps, Popess and Pope, met with disapproval by a Roman Catholic authority - Strasbourg, which had been in Protestant hands until 1681, was now under strong Catholic pressure (32) - who demanded that he replaced [sic] the two cards with any other less blasphemous figures. De Laboisse chose "Le Printemps" and "L'Hyver", while his competitors would afterwards switch to Juno and Jupiter. This may well be the origin of the so-called 'Tarot de Besancon'. All Tarot packs made in Strasbourg and later in Colmar follow this type, and we can see that all Latin-suited packs made in Germany also are of the 'Besancon' type.
_____________________
32. Although the French did not manhandle the Protestants, as they were doing in the rest of the country after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685), they were eager to restore the Roman Catholic institutions. This process is known as the "recatholicisation" of Alcase.

This thesis, that the Catholic authorities did not allow the Pope and the Popess, seems to me eminently reasonable . (Footnote 33 is about when the Tarot of Besancon came to Besancon, not until the 19th century.)

I really don't see why Protestants would have objected to the Pope and Popess in particular--after all, there was a Devil card, and the Pope was no different.

I can see why the Catholic powers wouldn't have wanted a Pope and Popess: because they considered that these cards were at best disrespectful, perhaps satirical and even seditious, in that the cards might stir up disorder, as providing occasions for Protestant to make slurs against the Pope in the midst of games.

I can also see why people in general would have preferred animal cards, because the previous tarot had some scary figures on them (as well as being unfamiliarly medieval). As Depaulis concludes his article (p. 79):

The real impetus [for expansion into Germany] was given in c. 1740 when someone (Francois Isnard in Strasbourg?) got the idea of changing the Latin suit signs for much more 'legible' French ones, and the terrifying figures on the trumps for more familiar animals, From that time on Tarot could expand in Germany (and Austria), and from there to other European countries. (38)
_________________
38. But how Tarot came to Belgium seems to b a much more complicated puzzle.

We can talk about Belgium later.

Huck wrote,

Henry III had visited Ferrara 1474, when returning from Poland to become king in France instead of becoming king of Poland. After this Tarot exploded in France as a definitely strong game (many notes).

I assume that "1474" is a typo, as Henry III became king of France in 1574.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_III_of_France).