Very interesting topic you brought here to us I think.
The triple cross which is hold by the Pope.

1-Here I found at Wikipedia some historical facts that suggest at least in the time when Noblet and Dodal (supposed year both as in Chosson BTW ) deck were done,may be in both examples he could be a Bishop so not a Pope.
I know that Ross has enough "genealogical" evidences,but anyone here see the " father of the creature" yet.
2- So just only for that I will conclude that both decks are prior when both were done ?
Of course not...
3-That link for me always Robert that details "jump" time and place.
So iconography could coexist with the ondoubtedly card game purpose at the end...

"A crosier was also carried on some occasions by the pope, beginning in the early days of the church. This practice was gradually phased out and had disappeared by the time of Innocent III's papacy in the eleventh century. In the Middle Ages, popes would carry a three-barred cross (one more bar than on those carried before archbishops), in the same manner as other bishops carried a crosier. "

eugim

Hi Eugim,

We know that the Vieville and Noblet decks are from around 1650-1660, in Paris. They are listed on lists of cardmakers at the time.

We know that Dodal is from sometime between 1701 and 1713, basically 50 years after the Noblet and the Vieville.

We guess that the Dodal is actually a Payen, and we know that the Payen family was making tarots in Marseille in the late 1600s, and in Avignon in the 1700s.

We can group this "type" of style as "Tarot de Marseille I". One of the defining characteristics is the crosier rather than the triple cross (as found on Conver, and Chosson).

The Cary Sheet, dated to around 1500, also shows the crosier on one of the cards (as well as the full faced-moon, and the "hands" on the Hanged Man, for instance). So we know that this Tarot de Marseille I type of card has relationships going back to about 1500, if not slightly earlier.

then....

We have the Chosson, whose dating is uncertain. I'm willing to believe that it really is from 1672, but if not, then the first "Tarot de Marseille II" deck that we have is from the same time as the Dodal, around 1710. The Conver is late, 1760, and is really just a copy of an earlier sample, perhaps a Chosson or Madenie, or other popular "Tarot de Marseille II" model.

So until we can find additional evidence, we have the Cary Sheet, with it's relationship to the Tarot de Marseille I as the oldest example of this pattern. Next we have the Vieville and the Noblet, which I look to as authoritative. I also think the Dodal/Payen is authoritative because of the connection to the Sforza Castle Sun card, which in my opinion is probably pretty damned close to the model that Dodal, Payen, Vieville, and Noblet are based on.

When did the break occur that led to the Chosson/Conver/Tarot de Marseille II? I don't know. It could in fact be older than the Tarot de Marseille I, but I have yet to find nearly as much evidence of that as the Cary Sheet and the Sforza Castle card do for the Tarot de Marseille I as being the oldest style.

We know that historically, by the time of the birth of the Tarot de Marseille, the crosier was out of fashion for a Pope, and was more easily recognized as a symbol for a bishop. We need to decide if originally the Pope and Popess were really a pope and popess or not, and I don't think we have enough evidence to be certain. It's very possible that even with a crosier, the image was still meant to imply a pope.. but perhaps a famous one from history whose symbol was the crosier rather than a contemporary to tarot. Perhaps it was never intended to be a pope, but rather a famous saint or church father; Augustine comes to my mind.

This reminds me of the Cary Sheet very much!
http://www.beloit.edu/~nurember/book/im ... VIr%20.jpg

.

I think if we accept the notion that the Papesse and Empress were simply 'another' Pope, and 'another' Emperor, then following that logic, we might consider that perhaps at some point, the Juggler may have been simply another type of Fool. The Juggler on the Rosenwald sheet certainly suggests such a possibility. It's interesting that modern playing cards come with two Jokers.

Le Mat and Le Bateleur certainly have the honor of being present at more kids birthday parties then anyone else... Clowns and Magicians! Kids can't get enough!

It makes me wonder if maybe the Estensi pack even had a Juggler, or Papess, or Empress card. Maybe they are not missing, maybe this deck only had one of each type?


RaH

R.A. Hendley wrote:.

I think if we accept the notion that the Papesse and Empress were simply 'another' Pope, and 'another' Emperor, then following that logic, we might consider that perhaps at some point, the Juggler may have been simply another type of Fool. The Juggler on the Rosenwald sheet certainly suggests such a possibility. It's interesting that modern playing cards come with two Jokers.

I think you are right about the pairing of the Juggler and Fool. I imagine Robert has some available pictures of "Children of the Planets" where a Juggler and Fool appear together. They form a natural, and historically accurate, pair.

In the Bolognese game (I think in Minchiate also) both the Fool and Bagatto are "wild cards" (there they are called "contatori" - counters) - they can take the place of any missing card in a potential sequence (a meld that counts for points), subject to some restrictions. So it's like two Jokers. The Fool does always have the additional power, which the Bagatto does not have, of "excuse".

I can't agree with your idea of the plausibility of the Este (or Charles VI for that matter) pack having only 1 of each figure though. That the packs are incomplete is a fact (the remaining court cards show that most of the deck is missing); so I tink the weight of probability rests with the assumption that there were originally a "standard" set of 22 trumps as well.

Ross

Hello Robert...
i m agree with you overall.
Bur a paragraph of yours let me thinking :
"We can group this "type" of style as "Tarot de Marseille I". One of the defining characteristics is the crosier rather than the triple cross (as found on Conver, and Chosson)."
So ...
1-How consider Chosson as early as 1672 ?
His Moon card pattern is closest to Tarot de Marseille II as Conver is.
His Le Pendv card has an art line engrave "tres finesse " as Conver certainly not found on the others Vieville,Noblet and Dodal,more rough certainly,more Gothic.
So by contrast Chosson is for me more Baroque ...
2-I m strongly be by your side when you remark the point about the Sforza Castle World Card.
I see its mandorla very close to the Dodal card one,with its oval,vagina pattern.
Also its absence of the two unions at the middle of its on both sides.
But Conver and Chosson also !
-Noblet also because is the only of those named that at the top both the Angel and the Eagle don t overflow the limit of the card.
-Vieville also very close as he is the only numbered and not named.
3-Well I simply ask.
There is a single possibility that engravers distant in place and time between them,knew each others deck ?
I mean for example Dodal knew Noblet deck or even Sforza Castle Card ?
If yes and as a result,could that explain those details "jumping" in time and place ?
As you right pointed they aren t minors details as they place a deck as Tarot de Marseille I or II.
May be Conver knew Dodal and simply he copied his mandorla pattern but not the figure inside it ?
That could works for any engraver as an example.
I mean,one could easily see elements or art patterns of Paul Klee in Joan Miro,but not all because are different time and because after all each one was what they was.

My best as always,

eugim

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:
I think you are right about the pairing of the Juggler and Fool. I imagine Robert has some available pictures of "Children of the Planets" where a Juggler and Fool appear together. They form a natural, and historically accurate, pair.

I have a couple of links. This one is great:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... r_Luna.jpg
I find this illustration incredibly interesting. Our Bateleur is one of the main focuses of the image. Behind him is pictures of a "tumbler", I'm assuming this is him as well, an advertisement. He's got the cups on the table, the wand in his hand. But in this case he seems to currently be working as a Dentist! You'll notice the person in line with the wrap around his jaw. You'll also notice that the Bateleur seems to be pulling a tooth. Another interesting aspect is the hat on the table. The patient's hat seems to be beside him on the ground. The hat on the table is, I would suggest, part of his tricks... the magician's hat. I imagine this is also what shows up on the table less clearly on the Visconti, and quite possibly even the Tarot de Marseille.

Beside him we find a character playing a trumpet, with a monkey on his back. We have seen in threads on AT how the Bateleur is often shown with a monkey in old illustrations, and even quite probably on the Cary Sheet (as pointed out by our member here Lorredan, also known as Rosanne on AT). I'm not sure he is the Fool, he's missing some of the iconography I would have expected... on the other hand he does have a dog about to attack him, and he is also barefoot, so it's quite possible that he is, at least in part, representing a Fool. He seems to be connected to the Bateleur, possibly "drumming up business"?

Here's the whole set:
http://www.solcon.nl/arendsmilde/mh-planetenkinder.htm
This site is amazing:
http://www.pascua.de/planetenkinder/sta ... kinder.htm

Of course, Ross also has images of the Bateleur which are from the Children of the Moon sets:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/tarot/bagatella.html

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote: In the Bolognese game (I think in Minchiate also) both the Fool and Bagatto are "wild cards" (there they are called "contatori" - counters) - they can take the place of any missing card in a potential sequence (a meld that counts for points), subject to some restrictions. So it's like two Jokers. The Fool does always have the additional power, which the Bagatto does not have, of "excuse".

I didn't know that; thanks again Ross for sharing with us.

EUGIM wrote: 1-How consider Chosson as early as 1672 ?
His Moon card pattern is closest to Tarot de Marseille II as Conver is.
His Le Pendv card has an art line engrave "tres finesse " as Conver certainly not found on the others Vieville,Noblet and Dodal,more rough certainly,more Gothic.
So by contrast Chosson is for me more Baroque ...

Hi Eugim. Yes, the Conver is based on a deck like the Chosson, they are incredibly similar. Why 1672? Because of the discussion we've had on the subject on this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=53

I think the evidence is pretty convincing. Why not 1672? Michael Hurst has suggested that the break between the Tarot de Marseille I and Tarot de Marseille II probably happened VERY early, perhaps as early as before 1500.

Personally, I can't figure it out... yet. Most of the iconography of the Tarot de Marseille II seems to me to be based off of the Tarot de Marseille I AFTER it had the titles and numbers added on, so I think it happened after the pattern moved (presumably) from Italy to France.

Let's take a look at what Thierry Depaulis had to say on this subject, he is the first to bring it up:
[copied from Ross' post on AT here ]

Far from being tiresome, the multitude of tarots "de Marseille" which follow permits the distinguishing of two groups. The first is characterized by a Cupid without hair, going towards the left, eyes blindfolded (Atout no. VI, l'Amoureux); a Devil whose stomach has a human face on card no. XV; the Moon (no. XVIII) shows a face; on the World no. XXI, a feminine figure dressed in a loincloth and cape. [and the two figures on the Sun are an adult male and female, barely wearing a sort of loincloth, while in Type II they are two infants of indeterminable sex. Finally, the Fool is named LE FOL, while in Type II, he is named LE MAT.]

The second type sees Cupid going to the right; he no longer has blindfolded eyes and his hair is curly. The Diable has a smooth belly, la Lune is in profile and the feminine figure is only clothed with a scarf and her left leg is bent.

The first type has some chance of being older: the solitary card of the World from the Castello Sforzesco, which is dated to the 16th century, shows the same feminine figure; the tarots of Jean Noblet (c. 1650 [c. 1660]), Jean-Pierre Payen (1713), Jean Dodal (c. 1715 [c. 1705]), Jean Payen (1743) are clear examples of this type. More unexpectedly, those of Cosmo Antonio Toso (Genoa, c. 1770?) and even Gummpenberg (Milan, end of the 18th century, of 'Milanese' type then current [cf. also Mann 1990, no. 205] are witness to the permanence of the model.

Finally, it becomes evident that the variant 'de Besançon', nearly to the smallest detail, comes from this Type I: the same Amoureux, the same Lune and the same Monde; on the other hand the Diable appears with a hairy body (Benoist and Carey at Strasbourg, Jerger and his successors at Besançon). It is interesting to compare the two tarots of François Heri, from Soleure, one undated (first half of 18th century), of Type I, but with Junon and Jupiter (it is certainly the first of the genre), the other, dated 1718, of Type II!

To this second Type belong the tarots of François Chosson (1672? [1762?]), Pierre Madenié (Dijon, 1709: finally recovered in its entirety), a number of Swiss tarots and classic tarots de Marseille (Conver, Bourlion, Tourcaty, etc.). Of course, there are those little pests who have mixed the two and with whom one finds a Lovers of Type II and a Devil of Type I... [see also D. Hoffmann, in Tarot, Tarock, Tarocchi, Leinfelden-Echterdingen, 1988, p. 11-12: 'Die Familie des Marseiller Tarock']

[Later addition:

Tarot de Marseille Type I is represented earlier than Type II; it is found at Lyon, Grenoble, Avignon; it disappeared after 1750, not before having engendered the 'Lombard' and 'Besançon' tarots. Some variants of the Tarot de Marseille Type II exist: a mixed form, combining Type I and Type II (M-I/II), a Type II with the Fool named LE FOL (M-IIa) and a Type II 'Genoan' with the Pendu in profile.

Type II is only known after 1700; it is found at Dijon, Besançon, in Switzerland, then at Marseille in the second half of the 18th century; it survived alone, or nearly, after 1800. According to D. Hoffmann, the Piedmontese Tarot (cf. for example that by Lando) comes from the Tarot de Marseille Type II (Hoffmann/Dietrich 1988, p. 12). The Tarot de Marseille Type II seems to be a "calmed", "humanised" version of Tarot de Marseille Type I: the Devil is less frightening, the feminine figure of the World is more feminine, that is, more "sexy" in regards to her hips and breasts (whereas the the corresponding figure in Type I is more "austere", less feminine). Briefly, the Tarot de Marseille Type II appears to me to be a "modernisation" of Tarot de Marseille Type I. Is it the work of Lyonnais cardmaker? of a Dijonnais? And how to explain its success in Marseille?]

The point to note here is: "Type II is only known after 1700". Now, that's true IF the Chosson is dated to the 1700s. If it is dated to 1672, then it is nearly 40 years ahead of the next existing sample, the Madenié.
Now I remember reading somewhere one of the arguments for dating the Chosson to the 1700s was that he is not mentioned among cardmakers in the 1600s, but IS mentioned as a cardmaker in the 1700s (I think the 1730s??? Anyone know the reference?)

Ross however has made a strong case that the woodcuts are older, and probably from the 1600s. That, along with the graphic evidence presented by One Potato, make a pretty compelling case. I don't see where it much matters... 1670s, or sometime in the 1700s that's only 30-some years apart.

EUGIM wrote:2-I m strongly be by your side when you remark the point about the Sforza Castle World Card.
I see its mandorla very close to the Dodal card one,with its oval,vagina pattern.
Also its absence of the two unions at the middle of its on both sides.
But Conver and Chosson also !
-Noblet also because is the only of those named that at the top both the Angel and the Eagle don t overflow the limit of the card.
-Vieville also very close as he is the only numbered and not named.
3-Well I simply ask.
There is a single possibility that engravers distant in place and time between them,knew each others deck ?
I mean for example Dodal knew Noblet deck or even Sforza Castle Card ?
If yes and as a result,could that explain those details "jumping" in time and place ?
As you right pointed they aren t minors details as they place a deck as Tarot de Marseille I or II.
May be Conver knew Dodal and simply he copied his mandorla pattern but not the figure inside it ?
That could works for any engraver as an example.
I mean,one could easily see elements or art patterns of Paul Klee in Joan Miro,but not all because are different time and because after all each one was what they was.

Well, you're asking the very questions that I keep asking... and these questions have led me to hypothesis how these similarities and differences came to be.

First, I think we need to keep this in mind, Dummett said:

A million is probably a highly conservative estimate for the number of Tarot packs produced in France during the seventeenth century; of those, no more than four have survived to us.

Four out of a million!!!, and that is just from France!!

I think we have to be really careful thinking that any of our existing decks are "based on" any other of our existing decks... the chances of that are astronomical. What we have are a few copies of decks that are part of the same family. They are cousins, maybe. Just think of all the "varieties" that we have lost! Every single deck that I have ever closely examined has, at least, slight differences from each other. Even the two Payens shown in the Cary Collection show differences, and these two probably ARE based off of each other.
Jean Payen:
http://highway55.library.yale.edu/PHOTO ... 613338.jpg
http://highway55.library.yale.edu/PHOTO ... 613339.jpg
http://highway55.library.yale.edu/PHOTO ... 613340.jpg
http://highway55.library.yale.edu/PHOTO ... 613341.jpg
http://highway55.library.yale.edu/PHOTO ... 613342.jpg
http://highway55.library.yale.edu/PHOTO ... 613343.jpg
http://highway55.library.yale.edu/PHOTO ... 613344.jpg
http://highway55.library.yale.edu/PHOTO ... 613344.jpg

Jean-Pierre Payen:
http://highway55.library.yale.edu/PHOTO ... 613346.jpg
http://highway55.library.yale.edu/PHOTO ... 613347.jpg
http://highway55.library.yale.edu/PHOTO ... 613348.jpg
http://highway55.library.yale.edu/PHOTO ... 613349.jpg
http://highway55.library.yale.edu/PHOTO ... 613350.jpg
http://highway55.library.yale.edu/PHOTO ... 613351.jpg
http://highway55.library.yale.edu/PHOTO ... 613352.jpg
http://highway55.library.yale.edu/PHOTO ... 613353.jpg
http://highway55.library.yale.edu/PHOTO ... 613354.jpg
http://highway55.library.yale.edu/PHOTO ... 613355.jpg
http://highway55.library.yale.edu/PHOTO ... 613356.jpg
http://highway55.library.yale.edu/PHOTO ... 613357.jpg
http://highway55.library.yale.edu/PHOTO ... 613358.jpg
http://highway55.library.yale.edu/PHOTO ... 613359.jpg

Personally, I think the chances are that the Dodal is a COPY of a deck like the one with the World card from the Sforza Castle. It looks like someone is duplicating the cards, and struggling to insert titles and numbers into the space that used to have part of the image in them.

The Vieville seems to "know" this style, but rather than a copy, this is a "redrawing". The Vieville has a loose style very different that the Tarot de Marseille, but he has details on Pips, and on courts and trumps that show that he saw the images before the titles and numbers were added. Now, one weird thing is that the Vieville has the numbers "inserted" where he can. He doesn't change the images to get the numbers in, he shoves them in where he can around the images. I'm not sure if he is copying something that already existed, and just inserting the numbers, or whether he intends to add the numbers (less likely) from the start. What he DOESN'T do is create a reserved space for the numbers...

... but Noblet does. Noblet seems to be another "redrawing", but Noblet knows from the start that he will have titles and numbers. He creates a space for them. All of his Valets have their titles neatly in their space, Dodal struggles with this. His Death is titled, because the space is sitting there waiting for the title. Noblet also "knows" that the Lion and the Bull on the World should have their full bodies. If he was based on a "Dodal" or "Conver" type deck, he would not have known this. He knows something that still has the bodies (so does Vieville). Noblet drastically changes the shape of the card. He widens it. He has much more room on the left and right, and he uses it. The Angel and the Eagle at the top of the World move apart. The Fool now has lot's more room to show the entire "dog".

The Tarot de Marseille II DOESN'T seem to know that the Bull and the Lion should have their full bodies. This implies to me that the Tarot de Marseille II was based on a Tarot de Marseille I that already had the titles. It also (generally) copies the Dodal style solution to naming the Valets. On the World, it looses the halo on the Bull.

What I see when I look at these decks is a mixture of "tradition", with "innovation", and problem solving. I wouldn't want to trust any one of them to give me "The story" of what exactly the earlier iconography looked like. I can compare them all as separate "testaments", and start to build my own theory of what earlier decks might have looked like.

I also go back to saying the same thing I said in another thread here. That "basically", the iconography is pretty amazingly consistent. On the other hand, I think the Tarot de Marseille decks that we have show signs of being fairly "late"... where lots of "insignificant" details have been lost. Thrones seem to "melt", floor patterns constantly change. Little details are added and taken away.

I confess I give added weight to Vieville, Dodal, and Noblet than I do to Tarot de Marseille II decks. I think they are better witnesses.

Yet, I really am not sure when the Tarot de Marseille II was born. I honestly do wonder if there are details in that style which might actually be a better witness than any of our existing Tarot de Marseille I style decks. This is the reason that Jean-Michel and I created the "Comparing and Contrasting" threads on AT, because we wanted to explore these old decks with others. I firmly believe that the way to get the closest to the "true" Tarot de Marseille, is by looking at all of the existing decks and "listening" to the tale they have to tell.

And so the conversation continues.

My dear Robert...

-Just only a question here please...
On Jean Dodal deck the seven de COUPE isn t numbered.

1-Simple negligence ?
2-Hidden meanings ?
3-Both coexisting ?

EUGIM wrote:My dear Robert...

-Just only a question here please...
On Jean Dodal deck the seven de COUPE isn t numbered.

1-Simple negligence ?
2-Hidden meanings ?
3-Both coexisting ?

I don't know why the Tarot de Marseille cardmakers were so inconsistent. I think negligence is too strong a word, but I certainly don't think there is any hidden meaning.

I don't have access to the Dodal right now, it is packed, but I can show you the Noblet, and it is also mixed.

Noblet cups:











NUMBERED:
V, VI/IV ;) , VII, VIII, X

UNNUMBERED
I, II, III, IV, VIIII

You know that I believe the numbers were added on to the cards after the designs were set. Looking at the Noblet, it seems to me he added the numbers on cards that had space for numbers, where he wouldn't interfere with the images. Of course, I suppose he could have squeezed them into them all.

I've gone on at length before about the pip cards, and the disappointment I had when I realized that some of the Tarot de Marseille pips had actually lost some of the artwork on them when the numbers were added. I believe that our best window into seeing what the pips looked like before the numbers caused some artwork to be changed is to look to the Vieville. I often show this example of the 8 Batons from the Sforza Castle, Vieville, Dodal... and then the Noblet:

Thanks Robert for the Noblet Numerals ...
I never saw them / Beautiful !
I haven t them yet till Santa Claus arrive soon...

1-Evidently word is wider in Tarot de Marseille world ...
2-Could be a less possibility that the engravers were somewhat lazy boys ?
3-After all Tarot de Marseille has for me a different art source than italians decks,and philosophical also.