Re: Pseudo Charles VI Tarot : Exhibit on line Bnf

#121
Steve

"Once you have given a complete name, I think from that point you can abridge it, for example, for the first time

Roger de Gaignières Tarot (dit de Charles VI).
Bibliothèque nationale de France: KH-24

From then on, simply le Tarot de Gaignières (of if preferred, as being established, then Tarot dit de Charles VI)"


Yes. That's going to be progression to abridge it - once a consensus reached on the complete name.


Soon I hope!
Waiting for Mikeh, Huck, Kate, Phaeded ...
The question is : what dénomination can be given to the game?
I have preference for :
Tarot (?) de Gaignières dit de Charles VI
Steve's proposition is :
Tarot de Gaignières dit de Charles VI

We have a first feed back of the French Forum
Chevre : she goes your way and I suppose Bertrand will also!
"pour ma part, OK pour Tarot de Gaignières dit "de Charles VI", je trouve élégant de rendre hommage au grand collectionneur grâce auquel nous connaissons tous ces trésors. Même si, d'un autre côté, j'ai vaguement l'impression que Tarot dit "de Charles VI" suffirait... et simplifierait les comptes rendus. Quoique les abréviations sont aussi là pour ça...?! ("TG Ch VI" ?)"


Added later :
About 16 and 22...
I understand as you that it is a game of Trionfi later on called Tarot.

But in my mind, the word TAROT does appear in only 1505 with taraux and tarocchi.
In the TG Ch VI, we have 16 Trionfi.

Now, a wild hypothesis absurd : what if they were 22 and not 16?
Then I would have considered that we would have been in front of the first TAROT without it's later name!

But this is not the case
Maybe is it a Trionfi / Chess?
Web page : http://letarot.it/page.aspx?id=23&lng=eng

Re: Pseudo Charles VI Tarot : Exhibit on line Bnf

#122
OK Alain, if you insist, here is what I think:

The TdChVI is very definitely not a pseudo-tarot. It is a real tarot, even if we don't know how many triumphs it had. 16 is enough, and if there is one suit card then there were surely more (Huck might disagree, I don't know). Tarot was a card game played before it was called "tarot" and "tarocchi", just as Madame de Gaulle had a life before she married the General (who may not even have had that title). Likewise we have the so-called Charles VI tarot (or "tarots", in French), of probably before 1465, then called triumphs. The "then called triumphs" is only necessary if there is confusion.

Nor is it pseudo-Charles VI. The convention about "pseudo" followed by someone's name is that it is used to indicate that the author or editor was not actually the one to which the work has been conventionally attributed. So pseudo-Dionysius, pseudo-Iamblicus, pseudo-Aristotle, etc. But Charles VI was never seen as the author or artist of that deck.

Calling the deck in question the "tarot de Gaignières" follows the principle of designating a tarot by its principal collector. But we don't always follow that principle, at least on THF: the "Marseille" tarot was not collected by someone named Marseille. The Cary-Yale was not collected by Cary-Yale, etc. Moreover "tarot de Gaignières" is rather obscure, unless you explain it in detail.

Here are a couple of pages from Depaulis's Le Tarot Revele
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KJ-JpCgro0k/ ... e-011a.jpg

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TJ4gX17659Y/ ... e-012a.jpg

You will see that he refers to the deck in question as either (p. 21)
"tarot de Charles VI"
or (p. 22)
tarot "de Charles VI"
Either seems fine to me; nor is it necessary to be consistent. It seems to me that "dit" in French sometimes is used, with or without the quotation marks. In English that would be "so-called".

You will notice that Depaulis refers to other decks in a variety of ways. On p. 20 he uses the names of the principal collectors. On p. 21 he uses the name "tarot 'Visconti-Sforza'" for the same deck that he called "tarot 'Colleoni'" on the previous page. (I do not approve of such promiscuity unless clearly explained.) He uses quotation marks around "Colleoni" and "Visconti-Sforza" but not "tarot". We of course call it the PMB. On p. 22 he speaks of the tarot Rothschild with no quotation marks at all. (It is not at all clear to me that it is a tarot, but apparently it is to Depaulis. I would call them the Rothschild cards. The only trump is the Emperor, which might be for "VIII Imperatori".)

Personally, I am against "tarot Gaignières" or "tarot de Gaignières" because "Gaignières" is obscure and the deck already has a name which those who know it has nothing to do with Charles VI continue to call it.

As far as abbreviations, it does not matter much, as long as it is made clear in the text what it is an abbreviation for, preferably in parentheses or brackets immediately after the first use. But "TdG" or "TdeG ChVI" both have the problem that the passages in which they occur then are quoted by others in isolation from the previous reference. That then obliges the person doing the quoting to put an explanation for the "G" in brackets, or as part of an introduction. Even in the same work, if the abbreviation appears at some distance from the unabbreviated version, an explanation is required, i.e. the longer version in parentheses. Abbreviations have to be readily recognizable out of context. So one would have to say, in a quotation "...TdG [i.e. tarot de Gaignières, le premier collectionneur, également appelé le tarot dit de Charles VI]", at least the first time. The same would be necessary in any longer abbreviation with the letter G included. Also, if the primary language of the one doing the quoting is not French, it is likely that the one doing the quoting, in the explanation, will leave off the accent grave. It is a bother, especially for one not accustomed to accent marks, to include them. Then error is introduced. So I don't like "Gaignières", or its abbreviation, "G".

For abbreviations, I would recommend doing what we do for the Tarot de Marseille. In both English and French writing, the usual abbreviation is "Tarot de Marseille", without any quotation marks around either "Tarot de Marseille" or "M" alone (since we have no idea where the Tarot de Marseille originated). So: TdeChVI. Or more briefly: ChVI or CHVI. Whatever is used, it should be put in parentheses or brackets after the full name the first time it is used in a document (even if I didn't at the beginning of this post).

Added later: re-reading what I wrote, I noticed a very odd thing in the last paragraph. The THF program won't let me write my intended abbreviation for "Tarot de Marseille". How odd! So here is my attempt to rewrite the last paragraph in a way that will defeat that rascally program (to see what I mean, read that paragraph in "quote" mode):

For abbreviations, I would recommend doing what we do, or at least thought we did, for the Tarot de Marseille. In both English and French writing, the usual abbreviation is "T" followed immediately by "d" and then "M", without any quotation marks around either the whole three letter combination or "M" alone (since we have no idea where the Tarot de Marseille originated). So, for the "Charles VI" tarot: TdChVI. Or more briefly: ChVI or CHVI. Whatever is used, it should be put in parentheses or brackets after the full name the first time it is used in a document (even if I didn't at the beginning of this post).

Re: Pseudo Charles VI Tarot : Exhibit on line Bnf

#123
BOUGEAREL Alain wrote:
Now, a wild hypothesis absurd : what if they were 22 and not 16?
Then I would have considered that we would have been in front of the first TAROT without it's later name!
I am not quite sure I follow you here -- what is absurd about a tarot having 22 (or 21+0) prior to the name Tarot?

The list of the Steel sermon has 21 triumphs +0

Sola Busca and Boiardo also have 21+0

I don't find the possibility of there having originally been 22 or 21 trumps +0 wild or absurd, on the contrary, I think it highly probable!

And why would it have been 'the first'? What about the other partial/incomplete 15th century decks?

Re: Gaignières :
Depaulis, Thierry "Roger de Gaignères [SIC]et ses tarots" in _Le Vieux Papier_ 301 (July 1986)

sounds interesting!
Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.
T. S. Eliot

Tarot dit de Charles VI

#124
Steve quoting me :
"Now, a wild hypothesis absurd : what if they were 22 and not 16?
Then I would have considered that we would have been in front of the first TAROT without it's later name!"


Answer : I failed to make me understand, I believe...
I was refereing to the ChVI 16 Trionfi - if we had had 22 allegorucal figures.

Steve :
I am not quite sure I follow you here -- what is absurd about a tarot having 22 (or 21+0) prior to the name Tarot?

The list of the Steel sermon has 21 triumphs +0

Sola Busca and Boiardo also have 21+0

I don't find the possibility of there having originally been 22 or 21 trumps +0 wild or absurd, on the contrary, I think it highly probable!

Answer : so do I.
See what i wrote answering Hurst :
"What Mr. Hurst considers incidental, the Number, and as essential, the Image, is not important here - even if Hurst's belief in the primacy of Signified (Image) over Signifying (the Number) raises subjectivity over objectivity: how else to account for the sequence 22 when it comes to the poems of Boiardo or the 22 Figures of the Sola Busca?"
http://letarot.it/page.aspx?id=603

Steve
And why would it have been 'the first'? What about the other partial/incomplete 15th century decks? I

Answer :
If the Ch VI had had 22 allegorical figures and if it'sdatation is prior 1465, in my mid, it would have been the first tarot in datation - prior to Sola Busca (1496?) for example.
Now, about the partial/incomplete 15th century decks, in my mind, they are Trionfi later called Tarot.

Added later :
After reading the different posts , Mikeh and your's, I am near to decide to give the designation as it is known generally and as Bertrand had initially proposed :
Tarot dit de Charles VI
with an explanative note mentionning Gaignières.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1154&p=19502#p19502
Web page : http://letarot.it/page.aspx?id=23&lng=eng

Tarot dit de Charles VI

#125
Mikeh :
The TdChVI is very definitely not a pseudo-tarot. It is a real tarot, even if we don't know how many triumphs it had. 16 is enough, and if there is one suit card then there were surely more (Huck might disagree, I don't know). Tarot was a card game played before it was called "tarot" and "tarocchi", just as Madame de Gaulle had a life before she married the General (who may not even have had that title). Likewise we have the so-called Charles VI tarot (or "tarots", in French), of probably before 1465, then called triumphs. The "then called triumphs" is only necessary if there is confusion.
Nor is it pseudo-Charles VI. The convention about "pseudo" followed by someone's name is that it is used to indicate that the author or editor was not actually the one to which the work has been conventionally attributed. So pseudo-Dionysius, pseudo-Iamblicus, pseudo-Aristotle, etc. But Charles VI was never seen as the author or artist of that deck.

Answer
Well, that's the question.
There is a consensus (apart me) to call Tarot if there is one suit card not knowing how many triumphs there was - even if the <ord Tarot comes later on.
I would have reserved the Tarot designation to any 22 allegorical suit...But I am alone on this take. So let's forget it.
Final agreement to remove "pseudo" and "?".


Mikeh
Calling the deck in question the "tarot de Gaignières" follows the principle of designating a tarot by its principal collector. But we don't always follow that principle, at least on THF: the "Marseille" tarot was not collected by someone named Marseille. The Cary-Yale was not collected by Cary-Yale, etc. Moreover "tarot de Gaignières" is rather obscure, unless you explain it in detail.

Here are a couple of pages from Depaulis's Le Tarot Revele
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KJ-JpCgro0k/ ... e-011a.jpg

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TJ4gX17659Y/ ... e-012a.jpg

You will see that he refers to the deck in question as either (p. 21)
"tarot de Charles VI"
or (p. 22)
tarot "de Charles VI"
Either seems fine to me; nor is it necessary to be consistent. It seems to me that "dit" in French sometimes is used, with or without the quotation marks. In English that would be "so-called".

You will notice that Depaulis refers to other decks in a variety of ways. On p. 20 he uses the names of the principal collectors. On p. 21 he uses the name "tarot 'Visconti-Sforza'" for the same deck that he called "tarot 'Colleoni'" on the previous page. (I do not approve of such promiscuity unless clearly explained.) He uses quotation marks around "Colleoni" and "Visconti-Sforza" but not "tarot". We of course call it the PMB. On p. 22 he speaks of the tarot Rothschild with no quotation marks at all. (It is not at all clear to me that it is a tarot, but apparently it is to Depaulis. I would call them the Rothschild cards. The only trump is the Emperor, which might be for "VIII Imperatori".)

Personally, I am against "tarot Gaignières" or "tarot de Gaignières" because "Gaignières" is obscure and the deck already has a name which those who know it has nothing to do with Charles VI continue to call it.

As far as abbreviations, it does not matter much, as long as it is made clear in the text what it is an abbreviation for, preferably in parentheses or brackets immediately after the first use. But "TdG" or "TdeG ChVI" both have the problem that the passages in which they occur then are quoted by others in isolation from the previous reference. That then obliges the person doing the quoting to put an explanation for the "G" in brackets, or as part of an introduction. Even in the same work, if the abbreviation appears at some distance from the unabbreviated version, an explanation is required, i.e. the longer version in parentheses. Abbreviations have to be readily recognizable out of context. So one would have to say, in a quotation "...TdG [i.e. tarot de Gaignières, le premier collectionneur, également appelé le tarot dit de Charles VI]", at least the first time. The same would be necessary in any longer abbreviation with the letter G included. Also, if the primary language of the one doing the quoting is not French, it is likely that the one doing the quoting, in the explanation, will leave off the accent grave. It is a bother, especially for one not accustomed to accent marks, to include them. Then error is introduced. So I don't like "Gaignières", or its abbreviation, "G".

For abbreviations, I would recommend doing what we do for the Tarot de Marseille. In both English and French writing, the usual abbreviation is "Tarot de Marseille", without any quotation marks around either "Tarot de Marseille" or "M" alone (since we have no idea where the Tarot de Marseille originated). So: TdeChVI. Or more briefly: ChVI or CHVI. Whatever is used, it should be put in parentheses or brackets after the full name the first time it is used in a document (even if I didn't at the beginning of this post).

Added later: re-reading what I wrote, I noticed a very odd thing in the last paragraph. The THF program won't let me write my intended abbreviation for "Tarot de Marseille". How odd! So here is my attempt to rewrite the last paragraph in a way that will defeat that rascally program (to see what I mean, read that paragraph in "quote" mode):

For abbreviations, I would recommend doing what we do, or at least thought we did, for the Tarot de Marseille. In both English and French writing, the usual abbreviation is "T" followed immediately by "d" and then "M", without any quotation marks around either the whole three letter combination or "M" alone (since we have no idea where the Tarot de Marseille originated). So, for the "Charles VI" tarot: TdChVI. Or more briefly: ChVI or CHVI. Whatever is used, it should be put in parentheses or brackets after the full name the first time it is used in a document (even if I didn't at the beginning of this post).

Answer :
Understood.
Tarot dit de Charles VI
with an explanation mentionning Gaignières as collectionnor.
Web page : http://letarot.it/page.aspx?id=23&lng=eng

Re: Pseudo Charles VI Tarot : Exhibit on line Bnf

#126
About Gaignieres, here is one source, Roger de Gaignières et ses collections iconographiques, by George Deplessus, Paris 1870:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= ... 8;size=125

P. 12, note 2, mentions the so-called "Charles VI" as probably what Martin Lyster saw when he wrote, in his Voyage a Paris, of his visit to the cabinet of Gaignieres in 1698 (see p. 11), that
« Je considéré une chose assés frivole : c'étoit un recueil de jeux de cartes depuis 300 ans; les plus anciennes - étoient trois fois plus grandes que celles dont on se sert, à présent; elles étoient bien illuminées et dorées sur tranches, mais les jeux n'étoient pas complets. »

("I considered one thing frivolous enough: it was a collection of packs of cards spanning 300 years. The oldest were three times larger than those used now; they were illuminated well and gilded on portions, but the packs were not complete.")
Footnote 2 says:
. Il est fort probable que Lyster désigne ainsi le jeu de cartes dit de Charles VI, aujourd'hui conservé au département des estampes (réserve Kh, 4), qui provient de Gaignières, et qui est inscrit sur l'inventaire sous le n" 5634.

(It is very probable that Lyster designates thus the pack of cards known as [literally, said of] Charles VI, now in the Prints Department (Reserve Kh. 4), which comes from Gaignières, and which is inscribed on the inventory under No. 5634.)
Where did he get it? Wikipedia says of him
At an early age, François Roger began to make a collection of original materials for history generally, and, in particular, for that of the French church and court.[1] He soon was at the center of a group of art connoisseurs and historians that stretched from Paris to the court of the Grand Duke of Tuscany in Florence.

Re: Pseudo Charles VI Tarot : Exhibit on line Bnf

#128
Here is another post from Alain:

En relation iconographique avec le Chariot du TdChVI :

Image


Koy a offert une représentation d'un Chariot avec la Stemma des Medicis
dans laquelle il y a un Fou avec comme une écharpe sur laquelle est écrit :
SPQR. Il s'est ensuite interrogé si ce détail iconographique pouvait signfier quelque chose à propos du Sola Busca ...

Image


Image


Image


Non seulement SPQ mais je note qu'il chemine sous une lueur lunaire ...allusion à la Lune du TdChVI? C'est la même "phase lunaire"!
Belle coïncidence graphiquement au moins!

Image


Added later by Alain, as a kind of cross-reference between threads ["Kwaw" is Steve's name on Aeclectic]:

Kwaw a écrit :
Le plus célèbre étant peut-être la conjuration des Pazzi, où le pape Sixtus IV était directement impliqué;

Voir Steve Mangan :
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1041&p=19513&hilit ... zzi#p19513

Re: Pseudo Charles VI Tarot : Exhibit on line Bnf

#129
Also this, from Alain:

L'hypothèse du TdChVI lié à Sixtus IV et à la conjuration des Pazzi a aussi été défendue avec opiniatreté par Phaeded sur THF.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1159&p=18889&hilit ... zzi#p18889
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1154&p=18811&hilit ... zzi#p18811
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1159&p=18761&hilit ... zzi#p18761

Ce qui m'interesse dans cette piste est le fait méconnu sinon carrément inconnu jusqu'à maintenant que le Chef de la Conjuration n'est autre que Jacques de PAZZI comme je l ai démontré sur THF . Cela nous ramènerait à Avignon.

Jacques de Pazzi
Seigneur d'Aubignol et Loriol
Lord of Aubignan
http://wappenwiki.org/index.php/Chevaliers_du_Croissant
Chevaliers du Croissant - WappenWiki
wappenwiki.org
The Order of the Crescent was established in 1448 by René of Anjou, King of Jerusalem, Sicily and Aragon. The ambition of this order was to be placed at a comparable ...

Banquier, Syndic et Consul d'Avignon
Viguier de Marseille
Maître d' Hôtel de René d'Anjou ( Roi René de Provence )
Chevalier de l' Ordre du Croissant

Chef de la Conjuration des PAZZI à Florence en 1478
(Meurtrier de Julien de Medecis et pendu)

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=691&p=18247&hilit=pazzi#p18247
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1102&p=18619&hilit ... zzi#p18619
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=691&p=18250&hilit=pazzi#p18250

Re: Pseudo Charles VI Tarot : Exhibit on line Bnf

#130
Investigating further, Alain finds "SPQR" in Florentine drawings as well as one attributed to Nicoletto da Modena, c. 1507, that also has "FAMA VOLAT". To see them, along with descriptions in French by Giselle Lambert, you open http://books.openedition.org/editionsbn ... query=SPQR, click on the place names, four of which are "Florence", and find "SPQR" on the page.

Looking at Lambert's account of Nicoletto da Modena, I see that she mentions the tarot deck attributed to him, by Hind. Huck posted images from it, and some accounts about them, at http://www.forum.tarothistory.com/viewt ... 542#p18542. In the tarot/playing card literature, Moakley first drew attention to them; see http://www.forum.tarothistory.com/viewt ... tto#p19066 and http://www.forum.tarothistory.com/viewt ... tto#p19088

Nicoletto's style is rather similar to that of the Sola-Busca, in his case seemingly inspired by the discovery in Rome of Nero's "golden room", with its fascination on the walls for the grotesque.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron