Re: Tarot Origins and Early 15th Century Woodblock Printing

#111
OK, I'm going to stop being polite now.

Most of your speculations are irrelevant to a geneology of the modern tarot, my research question, which traces only the variants that contribute to the modern decks. As a pragmatic restriction, my first step is to say that the "bottleneck" for all modern designs and tarot conceptions is the Tarot de Marseille design. This may not be 100% accurate, but it is close. Once this is settled, the question becomes finding the antecedents to the Tarot de Marseille in 15th century Northern Italy, where all trionfi designs, of which most have left no descendants, originate.

Obviously the Cary sheet is a major data point. It is printed. It has the "astrologized" moon and star cards, perhaps also the sun. In addition, some of the contemporary Sforza castle cards show the tetramorphic world. Neither show the conventional Tarot de Marseille designs for the devil or the magician. Are the "astrologizations" borrowings from older Minchiate cards? Where did the tetramorphic world come from? These designs might orignate with condensations of multiple cards into one. For instance, the moon could be condensing Minchiate cancer and tarot moon; the world could be condensing the Tarot world/fame card with a Byzantine style last judgement with a conquoring Christ in a tetramorph as judge.

Clearly, to answer these questions, the number of cards in older hand painted decks (or their metaphoric source) is completely irrelevant. To answer this question, we need to know something about the library of images to which card makers had access, and the tastes of the less than noble card players to whom they sold the cards.

In short, I am not in the least bit interested in finding out what may have been meant by every use of the term "Trionfi" from 1400 to 1475. Moreover, if that is your research question, Huck, you are following the wrong method, at least by the standards of modern art history. An orthodox method for finding the meaning of "Trionfi" would require you to carefully attend to the meaning the word held for the speakers and audience, not for what it suggests to you, or might have meant in the general culture. Most of your fishing expeditions are irrelevant to your own research questions, never mind mine, since they do not properly restrict the meaning of the mentions of Trionfio to the actual context of the speaker and audience, to which you don't seem to pay attention. You may want to reread Baxandall on these points.

Re: Tarot Origins and Early 15th Century Woodblock Printing

#112
Jim Schulman wrote:OK, I'm going to stop being polite now.
Ah, that's good. It's better, if you are clear instead of polite.
Most of your speculations are irrelevant to a geneology of the modern tarot, my research question, which traces only the variants that contribute to the modern decks.
If that's your interest (geneology of the modern tarot), and you identify only the major Tarot variant as your object, you should be really interested to know, when this major variant existed an when likely not, and this has two stages ...

stage 1: when were all 22 objects clearly inside the composition
# that's likely then the Steele manuscript with not a totally sure date (but it seems to belong with some security to the very early 16th century, more insecure dating goes back 20-30 years.

stage 2: when did the 22 objects have all the numbers at the right place.
# that's likely still Catelin Geofroy. (1557)
As a pragmatic restriction, my first step is to say that the "bottleneck" for all modern designs and tarot conceptions is the Tarot de Marseille design.
Alright, then you can advance yiur interest to the Chosson deck deck (1672, but the date disputed). The next sure seems to be the Madenie (1709) and Payen (1713). Or you go back to 1630, then there's an allowance for Tarot production in Marseille.
Or to 1608, if you like ...
http://en.camoin.com/tarot/The-Restorat ... Tarot.html
This may not be 100% accurate, but it is close. Once this is settled, the question becomes finding the antecedents to the Tarot de Marseille in 15th century Northern Italy, where all trionfi designs, of which most have left no descendants, originate.
Obviously the Cary sheet is a major data point. It is printed. It has the "astrologized" moon and star cards, perhaps also the sun. In addition, some of the contemporary Sforza castle cards show the tetramorphic world. Neither show the conventional Tarot de Marseille designs for the devil or the magician. Are the "astrologizations" borrowings from older Minchiate cards? Where did the tetramorphic world come from? These designs might orignate with condensations of multiple cards into one. For instance, the moon could be condensing Minchiate cancer and tarot moon; the world could be condensing the Tarot world/fame card with a Byzantine style last judgement with a conquoring Christ in a tetramorph as judge.


Well, Cary-Yale sheet. Dated "late 15th century<" (Dummett, I think), mid 16th century (Kaplan). Any questions, that I made in this contexts, couldn't answer details about the background of this dating.
Clearly, to answer these questions, the number of cards in older hand painted decks (or their metaphoric source) is completely irrelevant.
If you think so, and that's the highest form of wisdom, you could achieve ... okay.
To answer this question, we need to know something about the library of images to which card makers had access, and the tastes of the less than noble card players to whom they sold the cards.
Well, the "library of images"n are somehow all pictures of mankind, which have survived (to us). Maybe the real Trionfi card painters had more (but how should we know?).
Reality is, we've not so much playing card pictures of 15th century. One can know them all by heart, but occasionally there are "new surprises". But that's seldom. The progress "to get more" is slow.
In short, I am not in the least bit interested in finding out what may have been meant by every use of the term "Trionfi" from 1400 to 1475. Moreover, if that is your research question, Huck, you are following the wrong method, at least by the standards of modern art history. An orthodox method for finding the meaning of "Trionfi" would require you to carefully attend to the meaning the word held for the speakers and audience, not for what it suggests to you, or might have meant in the general culture. Most of your fishing expeditions are irrelevant to your own research questions, never mind mine, since they do not properly restrict the meaning of the mentions of Trionfio to the actual context of the speaker and audience, to which you don't seem to pay attention. You may want to reread Baxandall on these points.
Thanks for your advice ... actually Trionfi.com attempted in the past to organize the relevant appearances of the word Trionfi (and related words), which were spread in older texts, and made them - as good as possible (and that not always perfect) - available in the web. This work was done in an earlier period, so for the moment that's not complete and need to be reworked.

http://trionfi.com/0/e/ (the right part)

Actually it was not only organized, but also researched, what else could be found. So, when we now have much more data (for which we even don't find the time to present them in a better reachable way), that's in parts our own merit, cause our work inspired others to help us.

It's not clear to me, what the experts in art history and old word recognition could teach us, as they weren't able to organize this interest before. Surely, nothing is perfect, and we all suffer from the reality, that work somehow has to be done and takes time. If we see something, which seems to be of relevance, we study it. We always learn, and the whole project spans meanwhile some centuries, so it's clear, we don't know all and we can't know all.

The word "triumphare" is an old word, and naturally has may children and uses, from which we had a special interest on "Trionfi" as a poem of Petrarca, and for "Trionfi" as a name for triumphal celebration. If you think, that we didn't consider this in the past, you' would be wrong.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Tarot Origins and Early 15th Century Woodblock Printing

#113
Jim Schulman wrote:To answer this question, we need to know something about the library of images to which card makers had access, and the tastes of the less than noble card players to whom they sold the cards.
Huck wrote:Well, the "library of images" are somehow all pictures of mankind, which have survived (to us). Maybe the real Trionfi card painters had more (but how should we know?).
This attitude is precisely why much of your research strikes me (and probably others) as so pointless. The card printers who made the first TDMish decks are not "all mankind." They exist in a specific place and time, have limited knowledge, and serve a limited market. If you are committed to a transcendent culture that exists in all places and times, and to which we have non-local access; you are not doing research, you are replacing one myth by another.

Re: Tarot Origins and Early 15th Century Woodblock Printing

#114
Jim Schulman wrote: This attitude is precisely why much of your research strikes me (and probably others) as so pointless. The card printers who made the first TDMish decks are not "all mankind." They exist in a specific place and time, have limited knowledge, and serve a limited market. If you are committed to a transcendent culture that exists in all places and times, and to which we have non-local access; you are not doing research, you are replacing one myth by another.
You're right, Jim. Huck does promote this unified vision of all times and places, unified by various but related numerical schemes.

The original alphabet, I Ching, Hesiod's Theogony and all Greek divine genealogies, Chess, Dice, all divination systems, all games - all of these can be understood as mnemonic systems built to express or play arithmetical games, and they can be reduced to a few simple groups. THIS is Huck's context for understanding anything that might be called "trionfi" in the 15th century, why every deck is explained in an ad hoc way, and if it has a number with "meaning" in his system, he finds that the most congenial way to start his story.

Hofämterspiel is Huck's "Favourite Tarot" at Aeclectic Tarot.
http://tarotforum.net/member.php?u=2835
(just google hofämterspiel to see some images if you don't know that it is a unique 15th century German playing card deck, not related to Tarot at all)

This gives you an idea of how much weight the term "tarot" or "trionfi" has for him - nothing at all. All of the above things, and probably every other systematic organizing story for myths or games, is a "Tarot" to Huck. In fact discussing only "standard Tarot" is boring for him, he wants to discuss all of this other stuff, which is far more interesting.
Image

Re: Tarot Origins and Early 15th Century Woodblock Printing

#115
Huck wrote: Well, Cary-Yale sheet. Dated "late 15th century<" (Dummett, I think), mid 16th century (Kaplan). Any questions, that I made in this contexts, couldn't answer details about the background of this dating.
I've explained this over the years in a few places, most recently here two years ago
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=566
Everybody knows how difficult it is to establish the provenance, and the dating, of the Cary Sheet. Michael Dummett was the first to publish it, in 1980, and assigned it to Milan, arguing as follows: Tarot must have gone from Italy to France in the aftermath of the French invasions of Charles VIII (1494) and Louis XII (1499), during the latter of which Milan was conquered and administered by France for 12 unbroken years, and several times intermittently up to 1525. Since the dominant pattern in France is the Tarot de Marseille, the pattern in Milan at that time must have been similar to the Tarot de Marseille. The Cary Sheet is definitely related to the Tarot de Marseille, and is obviously older than any surviving Tarot de Marseille. Since the Cary Sheet is conventionally dated to 1500 (I'm not sure whose date that is - it looks older to me), and is somehow ancestral to the Tarot de Marseille, it is therefore probably from Milan.
Here is another thing I'm sure I've published online somewhere -
I think we need to reexamine the contention that the Tarot de Marseille order and designs, or even C in general, was invented in Milan.

I think the Tarot de Marseille C order was invented in France (perhaps in Lyon) and stayed in France (until the 18th century anyway), and that the C order of Alciato, Susio and Viéville (Hermit above Fortune; position of Chariot and Love, or Fortitude and Justice, unstable) is another, perhaps older, French C order that invaded Milan with Louis XII’s armies and immigrants. Louis XII’s explicit policy seems to have been to make Milan the Italian Lyon. In any case Milanese merchants were granted all the privileges of Lyonnais ones (see for instance two paragraphs in a royal edict published by Bernardino Biodelli, from December 1502: “Nuovo documento storico relativo alle condizioni della città di Milano al tempo della conquista del Ducato di Milano fatta dal Re di Francia Lodovico XII” Archivio Storico Lombardo (1878) s. I, t. V fasc. 2, pp. 181-204. See for example page 195: Item, quod omnes mercatores Dominii Mediolanensis possint libere et tute mercari, seque exerceri in tota Gallia et dicione Christianissimi Regis Francorum et Ducis nostri, Feudatoriumque suorum, tam acquisita quam acquirenda, et immittere et extrahere omne mercimonium et pecunias, ac uti omnibus franchisiis et immuuitatibus quibus utuntur mercatores Lugdunenses, vel quivis dictae jurisdictionis mercatores privilegiati. See also page 201).

Dummett 1980 pp. 406r-408l; discussion of C order and spread to France.

Dummett only knew Susio at this time. Thus the C order was known in Pavia in the mid-16th century. Suggests it must have been known in Milan too.
(Okay, of course. This can now be supplemented with Alciato (the earliest witness, and actually in Milan) and Piscina – both are C, but not Tarot de Marseille)
He argues that the improbable placement of Temperance between Death and the Devil in both Tarot de Marseille and Susio argues for a common origin for both orders.
(Okay – I use the same argument – “improbability for both Bologna and Tarot de Marseille to have it” - for the priority of the order Love-Chariot in the Ur-Tarot)
Viéville’s order is closer to Susio than to Tarot de Marseille, showing that the Tarot de Marseille order did not prevail in France until the late 17th century.
(Okay)
Suggests the Italian invasions of Charles VIII and Louis XII, then followed by Francis I – all using French and Swiss soldiers – were the time of France and Switzerland’s first acquaintance with the game. Since they use the C order, the C order is original to Milan.
(Not exactly okay – see below)
The Cary sheet is ancestral to the Tarot de Marseille pattern, and therefore must be Milanese.
(Not okay – a circular argument – it is obviously ancestral to the Tarot de Marseille pattern, but assigning it to Milan is only on the assumption that the Tarot de Marseille is Milanese, for which there is no evidence, and for which, given the prevalence of the type of C order known in Lombardy and Piemonte in the 16th century, there is plenty of absence-of-evidence)

Note that the 1505 French “taraux” was not known in 1980; Dummett, like everyone, believed the earliest reference to be Rabelais, 1534.
For the invasion theory (page 407), Dummett summarizes: “The period of the French incursions into Italy, from 1494 to 1525, may therefore well have been the time when the game of Tarot first entered France.”

We know now that this time-frame must be considerably shortened, since packs and woodblocks of the cards were already being exported from Avignon to Pinerolo (near Turin) in 1505.

So the argument must become “The period of the French incursions into Italy, from 1494 to before 1505, may well be when the game of Tarot first entered France.”

Now, in 1980, Dummett writes of Charles VIII’s invasion, in 1494 – “Charles VIII of France invaded Italy in 1494, originally on the invitation of Lodovico Sforza (il Moro), Duke of Milan.” (Actually he was not yet technically Duke, but this is beside the point). Thus, Charles’ presence with a large Franco-Swiss army in 1494 is circumstantial evidence for their possible first acquaintance with the game, in its C family of orders.

I want to note that Dummett is not clear on what happened during this invasion, since he writes in 2004 – “It must have been from Milan, during the wars from 1494 to 1525 in which the French, under Charles VIII, Louis XII and Francis I, fought for possession of that city, that the game spread to France and Switzerland.” (HGT 111)

That Louis XII and Francis I fought for Milan is absolutely true; but nothing could be further from the truth in the case of Charles VIII, which considerably shortens the period for which Tarot must have entered France, on this theory, to between the end of 1499 and 1505.

Also, the period “1494-1525” is a misleadingly solid 32 years inclusive (although Dummett does go to the trouble to narrate the turmoil of the period 1512-1525); in fact Charles’ army was in Italy only from September 1494 to July 1495. They were only in Lombardy for 3 weeks inclusive (both invading and retreating), constantly marching. They never “fought for possession” of Milan, and never had any intention of doing so.

Charles VIII invaded Italy to claim Naples (which included Sicily of course, i.e. all of southern Italy), with the promise to use its strategic position to launch a crusade against the Turks. He never tried, nor intended, to invade Milan or any city in Lombardy, since he was there, as Dummett noted (without realizing the implications?) on the “invitation” of Lodovico Sforza.

Sources for the itinerary of Charles VIII in Italy:
Henri-François Delaborde, L’expédition de Charles VIII en Italie (1888)
Kenneth M. Setton, The Papacy and the Levant (1978), pp. 461ff.

They entered Milanese territory on their march on 10 October 1494 (Delaborde, 417); they were assured free passage by Sforza. Charles spent three nights in Vigevano. On the 14th, he was in Pavia. On the sixteenth, he saw the Certosa. On the 17th, he left for Piacenza. The bulk of the army went forward on 20 October, into Tuscany; Charles remained, in Piacenza, until the 23rd of October 1494, when he went to lead them. He was very impatient to conquer Tuscany, Rome and Naples. They had conquered Naples by February 1495, and Charles remained there until May. French affairs required his presence, and he travelled up the peninsula until the league that had been formed against him, the Holy League, met his army at Fornovo (he knew it had been formed, but assumed he was assured safe passage and had left enough forces, along with good-will, to defeat whatever actions it might take). The battle took place on July 6, and both sides buried the dead on July 7. It was not decisive from a military standpoint, but Charles was leaving anyway. They marched 130 miles to Asti, in Piedmont, for 7 days (8 to 15 July 1495).

So the total amount of time Charles spent in Milanese territory was 3 weeks. Most of his army spent less, about 18 days. It was a hectic passage both coming and going.

This is obviously not enough time to pick up the C order, and take it home. Since they spent November, December and January marching from the coast of Tuscany to Naples, and remained there until May – in all, eight months in central and southern Italy, including the march in June -, the game the army would have become acquainted with, if they did at all, was the southern game and A order, the only order known in Tuscany and southern Italy.

So we have to dismiss the first part of the French invasion theory, and with it the years 1494-1499.

The second one didn’t happen until 1499, when Louis XII, with a valid claim to Milan, took it easily, and a French regime administered it until 1512. This makes it a very short amount of time before Avignon is exporting Tarot cards to Italian-speaking Piemonte, an unlikely scenario, if Lombardy had been making enough cards for a Tarok-kartenspiel-invasion of France only a few years before. What happened to the local industry?

I think the French invasion theory was a more or less off-hand suggestion on Dummett’s part, and we can now see it as jejune and unnecessary. French-Italian relations were always profound enough that the game could have gone there any time after it was invented, and we do not have to assume that a mass of soldiers had to encounter the game for it to have begun to be played across the Alps.

My theory is that it is precisely opposite – the French invasion of 1499 is when French Tarot invaded Milan and Lombardy, and whatever native industry there was, was simply overwhelmed and adopted the new, French, game.
Here is another statement of the argument, from a private note -
I don't follow Dummett's attribution of the Cary Sheet to Milan, since his argument is circular: C comes from Milan, the Cary Sheet is clearly ancestral to the Tarot de Marseille, which is C, therefore the Cary Sheet comes from Milan. In fact the premise that C comes from Milan is not proven. All we can say is that at least since the mid-16th century it was present in Milan, and a lot of French water had passed under the bridge by that point. (the only evidence of Tarot in Milan earlier than Alciato's list (1543) are the Visconti and Sforza cards, which are not numbered and are not related to the Cary Sheet or Tarot de Marseille iconographies)

I'd rather have an expert in 15th-16th century prints assess the Cary Sheet, without theoretical bias. I've been meaning to ask Mark Zucker, who edited The Illustrated Bartsch for Italian prints of the 15th and 16th century, what he thinks of it. He doesn't include the Cary Sheet as an Italian print in The Illustrated Bartsch, although he has written on the Tarot and is familiar with the best secondary literature, so he must have seen it (see Mark Zucker, "The Master of the 'Sola-Busca Tarocchi' and the Rediscovery of Some Ferrarese Engravings of the Fifteenth Century", Artibus et Historiae, 18 no. 35 (1997), pp. 181-194; the list in note 6 on p. 193 consists of Game of Tarot, Tarot: jeu et magie, and I tarocchi. Le carte di corte).
Michael Dummett is the person who first published the sheet, and whose opinion about the dating and provenance have been followed by everyone since.

Of course the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University, doesn't offer any more information -
http://beinecke.library.yale.edu/dl_cro ... &srchtype=

(If that doesn't work, go to the main search page -
http://beinecke.library.yale.edu/digitallibrary/
- and search "cary", page 8)

I am sure that no one has looked for a watermark or otherwise studied the sheet since, so the dating and provenance made by Dummett remain the only suggestion yet made. Since he didn't base his attribution on scientific criteria such as a watermark or paper type, nor on artistic grounds, but only on where it should be in relation to his preferred theory of the diffusion of the C ordering, the attribution to Milan remains speculative.
Image

What is the point?

#116
The elephant in the room is "Why care?"

Tarot history might be just a wacky hobby. Unless it throws light on something important, or deep, it's just a pastime no better or dumber than any other.

If Huck sees tarot as a particularly interesting type of game, and the history of tarot and other cards as an entree into exploring various aspects of mostly European history, I can't see anything wrong with that. When I'm not interested in what he's exploring, I scroll down faster. :p

Ross said in an interview a couple of years ago, if I recall correctly, that he got interested in tarot because he is or was an occultist. I've got no beef with that. Other people on the forum got into tarot from divination (Robert, from runes), from a fascination with the religious and not-quite-religious imagery, from an interest in the art form itself, from what it evokes mathematically, astrologically, linguistically, poetically, magically....

Seems to me, for example, that to understand tarot it helps to have some old cards. We don't seem to talk about that here. Who among us has old cards? Which types, how old, in what condition? The cards themselves are the primary material--not the reproductions in books or facsimiles, not descriptions in materials of the time or modern analyses, but the cards themselves. I've got some old ones, I know some others who do too. (I'd rather spend a hunk of money old cards than spending a hunk of money on books about cards.)

Since the thread has wandered, as many do, into a discussion of the legitimacy of this vs. that approach to tarot history, I suppose this is as good a place as any to ask (maybe not so gently) if any one of us has a better or worse reason for caring about how many angels are dancing on the pin.

Re: Tarot Origins and Early 15th Century Woodblock Printing

#118
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote: You're right, Jim. Huck does promote this unified vision of all times and places, unified by various but related numerical schemes.

The original alphabet, I Ching, Hesiod's Theogony and all Greek divine genealogies, Chess, Dice, all divination systems, all games - all of these can be understood as mnemonic systems built to express or play arithmetical games, and they can be reduced to a few simple groups.
... :-) ... interesting interpretation. But you exaggerate: Some older systems follow the binary system and can so be related to each other, others not. So I would never say, that all divination systems and all games belong to the same mathematical category. That would be nonsense. For instance common card games or card decks don't belong to them.
THIS is Huck's context for understanding anything that might be called "trionfi" in the 15th century, why every deck is explained in an ad hoc way, and if it has a number with "meaning" in his system, he finds that the most congenial way to start his story.
Also exaggerated. The 5x14-deck is simply a matrix-deck as many others and it doesn't fit with the binary system. Without the recognition of the big error about the circumstances about the Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo deck I never would have taken up the challenge of 15th century Tarot. The Chess Tarot interpretation has more from the binary system, as chess belongs to the games with some relationship to it. But chess is a world of its own, and has its own history, and there it is just a game - between many other similar, but different chess games.
Hofämterspiel is Huck's "Favourite Tarot" at Aeclectic Tarot.
http://tarotforum.net/member.php?u=2835
(just google hofämterspiel to see some images if you don't know that it is a unique 15th century German playing card deck, not related to Tarot at all)
This was just fun ... but later I realized, that it indeed had somehow deep symbolic meaning. The Hofämterspiel I perceive as the closest relative to the 60-cards-game of Johannes of Rheinfelden (the number-cards had also professions, as the Höfämterspiel and as the Cessolis chess interpretation. I see this Johannes-deck as the first noted court card game and would assume, that it became the mother of the Michelino deck and all other court decks inclusive the various Tarot variants.
This gives you an idea of how much weight the term "tarot" or "trionfi" has for him - nothing at all. All of the above things, and probably every other systematic organizing story for myths or games, is a "Tarot" to Huck. In fact discussing only "standard Tarot" is boring for him, he wants to discuss all of this other stuff, which is far more interesting.
Indeed, a Tarot with variants is in my perspective much more interesting as a Tarot without variants and I see it for research as valuable quality, if one stays in his mind neutral against the researched objects and also neutral to the own research results and also those of others. All else only disturbs the calm of the mind and leads possibly to errors. And errors should be avoided, if possible.
Perhaps we can agree on the last value.

*******

Btw: The Golden-Dawn interpretation of Tarot (by connection between Tarot cards and Hebrew astrological symbols [= letters]) belongs to the children of the binary tree. But it wasn't a correct historical system ... the 5x14-theory just fitted with the conditions of the Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo deck much better than anything else.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Tarot Origins and Early 15th Century Woodblock Printing

#119
Jim Schulman wrote:
Jim Schulman wrote:To answer this question, we need to know something about the library of images to which card makers had access, and the tastes of the less than noble card players to whom they sold the cards.
Huck wrote:Well, the "library of images" are somehow all pictures of mankind, which have survived (to us). Maybe the real Trionfi card painters had more (but how should we know?).
This attitude is precisely why much of your research strikes me (and probably others) as so pointless. The card printers who made the first TDMish decks are not "all mankind." They exist in a specific place and time, have limited knowledge, and serve a limited market. If you are committed to a transcendent culture that exists in all places and times, and to which we have non-local access; you are not doing research, you are replacing one myth by another.
Well, I hoped, you would understand my idea with less words. Naturally the "library of images" the designers were limited to their local and contemporary situation, I don't doubt that.
But for this specific situation we have in our situation only limited access, especially as the date and the place of the "TDMish" style is rather unknown and floats according the opinion of specific researchers through 5 centuries and more and from France to Italy, at least in the less serious discussions, in which occasionally Cathars, heretics of all kinds, 13th century troubadours and a diversity of church graphics are "under suspicion" to have had the deciding model.
In the more serious discussions it are only 2 centuries, but - anyway - that's rather much to search for the right "library of images".

This situation makes the discussion rather "pointless".
The situation is, that we have a rather gigantic swarm of "TDMish" deck production since the begin of 18th century, actually since the period, when the Bourbons in France started to become interested to get Spain (which they got finally), but the war about it took 14 years, and they didn't get the Spanish possessions in Italy.

Actually we have before a situation, when the interests in Tarot in France declined (that's an opinion of Dummett, Depaulis, McLeod etc.) since at least 1661, when Louis XIV., personally given as very fond of card-playing, took the power in his own hands. He organized twice a week a sort of playing card evening (so far I've read it), mainly to keep the nobility under control ... but it seems, they didn't play Tarot (which was in French eyes a "German" game), but with ordinary FRENCH cards (well, that was a form of "national idea").

[LATER ADDED: The following was written by me and it was NOT correct: "In 1704 Père Menestrier (often relevant in heraldic questions at the French court) wrote about playing card history, and came up with the idea, that Tarot cards were a French invention, based on the Gringonneur document and the Charles VI. cards."
Ross explained the real context at ...
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=845&start=119
... Menestrier noted the Gringonneur document, but didn't draw a connection to the Charles VI deck.]

After that it was made public, that Tarot was "from France", then we get the result of the begin of the swam of the TDMish decks, but also the swarm of the "Tarot de Besancon" (after 1704, actually a little bit later, but already during the war, before 1714).
In the case of the Tarot de Besancon (which actually originated in Strasbourg - part of France in 1699, but conquered in 1681 already - according the research of Depaulis) Depaulis has found an engraver of some importance, who likely made all the following woodcuts, and I would assume, that this version (with Jupiter and Juno, without Pope and Popess) especially aimed at the protestant market. The situation is less clear for the Tarot de Marseille, but perhaps there was also a dominant designer. But it seems, that this (still hypothetical and my hypothesis and not of Depaulis) new movement "we make Tarot in France" as part of a propaganda war-strategy started in the later part of the war, after 1707 or a little later.
[I wrote about this recently:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=821&p=11693#p11693 ]
I think, I noted this already in this thread ... it seem, I repeat myself]

If we conclude now on the date of the "final redaction" of the Marseille Tarot, one would have to search around this time. There somewhere is the "library of pictures".
But, as we know the Noblet Tarot, we clearly see, that this earlier deck (c. 1660) or a relative of it took deciding influence.

[COMPARE the above note to Menestrier: "As we may assume from the situation (Menestrier 1704), that there was the approach to establish "the true story" of Tarot as a "French invention", we likely have to assume, that the designer took older cards ... to which degree we don't know."]
Perhaps the Chosson is really from 1672, then they might have taken this one.

Well, this observation of the Tarot-revival at begin of 18th century doesn't change the problems of the Marseille Tarot chronology, but it might solve the problem, why the production of the Maeseille exploded in different catholic countries.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Tarot Origins and Early 15th Century Woodblock Printing

#120
Huck wrote: In 1704 Père Menestrier (often relevant in heraldic questions at the French court) wrote about playing card history, and came up with the idea, that Tarot cards were a French invention, based on the Gringonneur document and the Charles VI. cards.
After that it was made public, that Tarot was "from France", then we get the result of the begin of the swam of the TDMish decks, but also the swarm of the "Tarot de Besancon" (after 1704, actually a little bit later, but already during the war, before 1714). As we may assume from the situation (Menestrier 1704), that there was the approach to establish "the true story" of Tarot as a "French invention", we likely have to assume, that the designer took older cards ... to which degree we don't know. Perhaps the Chosson is really from 1672, then they might have taken this one.
Actually, Menestrier attributed Tarot to German invention. Here is what he says:

"As it was the Germans who first invented woodcut impression, they were also the first to print playing Cards. It is true that they made many extravagant figures, very different from ours, since they showed God, Angels, the Devil, the Pope, the Popess, Kings, Fools etc., and to make them more practical without being easily dirtied or recognized by the backs, they covered them with criss-crossing lines in the form of a Mesh ["Rezeüil"=reseau] which gave them the name Tarcuits and Cards Tarautées. Because the word Tare, flaw, waste, or stain, is properly a hole, of which the Etymology is the Greek word tiréin, Terebro, torno, vulnero teredòn Teredo, the worm that eats wood, Terebra Tariere to pierce, Terere to crumple, worn off from rubbing. Tare is thus any sort of stain, flaw, or waste; a work taré, is a work punctured, used, scratched, from which was formed the word Tarif for a sheet of paper or a table divided by lines and by squares, to mark the duty on Foodstuffs and Merchandise to pay at the Customs desk, and the tablets on which were marked the price and estimation of payment according to their additions and subtractions. Also in Blazon one says a “casque tarre” [helmet “tarre”], that is to say one which has a meshed (or slotted) visor."

(Claude-François Menestrier (1631-1705), Bibliothèque curieuse et instructive de divers Ouvrages Anciens & Modernes, de Littérature & des Arts (Trevoux, 1704), vol. II, pp. 178-180.)

Menestrier doesn't ever mention the so-called "Charles VI" cards. They were in the private possession of Roger de Gaignières, who only donated them to the Royal Library in his will of 1711.

It was Louis Du Four de Longuerue who, in 1754, made the first apparent connection between Menestrier's quote of the account of royal treasurer Charles Poupart, which mentions Gringonneur. Yet Longuerue himself doesn't explicitly say that Gringonneur's cards for Charles VI in 1392 were the same as those he saw in Roger de Gaignière's house, and which later became famous as the Gringonneur or Charles VI cards.

In the Longueruana - his recorded conversations or table-talk - mentioned in the quoted passage, he mentions having seen what we now call the Charles VI Tarot in the collection of Roger de Gaignières, and he also mentions in this context that he had read of Menestrier's comment about the account of Charles Poupart, an account-keeper of king Charles VI, where he reports on Jacquemin Gringonneur's manufacture of 3 packs of cards for the King, in 1396.

Thierry Depualis thinks this passage might have been the beginning of the legend which associated Poupart's account with the cards.

Longueruana, ou recueil de pensées de discours et de conversations de feu M. Louis du Four de Longuerue, Paris: Desmarets, 1754; vol. I, pp. 107-108.
http://archive.org/details/longueruanaoure01conggoog

He also correctly notes that these cards "had their birth in Italy".

"J'ai vu chez M. de Ganières un jeu de cartes (je ne sçai s'il étoit complet) telles qu'elles étoient dans leur origine. Il y avoit un pape, des empereurs, les quatres monarchies, qui combattoient les uns contre les autres: ce qui a donné naissance à nos quatre couleurs. Elles étoient longues de 7 à 8 pouces. C'est en Italie que cette belle invention a pris naissance dans le XIVe siècle. J'ai vu quelque part dans un petit livre du P. Menestrier, Jésuite, la citation de je ne sçais quelle somme passé à la Chambre des Comptes pour un jeu de cartes acheté en 1391 pour divertir le Roi Charles Vi qui étoit alors en démence."

(At Mr. Gaignières' home I saw a pack of cards (I don't know if it were complete), such as they originally were. There was a Pope, Emperors, the four Monarchies, who fought against each other; this is what gave birth to our four suits. They were 7 or 8 inches long. It was in Italy that this beautiful invention was born, in the 14th century. I saw somewhere in a little book by the Jesuit, Father Menestrier, the citation of a sum of, I don't know how much, passed in the Treasury for a deck of cards bought in 1391 for king Charles VI, who was then mad.")

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=784&p=11329&hilit=longuerue#p11329

I believe the story that Jacquemin Gringonneur invented cards, and that these cards were the "Charles VI" cards, is a 19th century erudite legend, much like that which makes the "Mantegna Tarots" the source of Tarot cards.
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Huck and 8 guests

cron