Re: The Star
Posted: 06 Apr 2012, 09:00
I think you're right on track pen. Although Noblet, for instance, is from 1650ish, he certainly was copying a pattern that was a copy of a pattern, that was a copy of a pattern, etc.. going back many generations for probably 150-200 years! What's amazing is the amount of consitancy, it's the little changes that allow you to track things over time and place. As has been suggested by R. A. Hendley above, Noblet was most likely a craftsman, out to make a living, producing a popular deck of cards in response to demand. I think he would have cared about "craftsmanship".. to some level, and he would have been intimately familiar with the colours and lines, but I wouldn't think of most of these cardmakers as making any sort of "statement" in their artwork. With some cardmakers, I wouldn't even go that far, they were out to mass produce a product.
I think the critical thing to keep in mind about the time period is that we have to look at the early *remaining* TdMs from the point of view that they are the few, few chance survivors, and that they represent a miniscule number of the original decks, probably most with minor variations. I always keep this quote from Dummett in mind:
“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.”
So, out of a million, in France, in the 1600s, four remain. Of those, we have the Noblet, and possibly the Chosson as Tarot de Marseille, and the Vieville if we'd like to include it because of its obvious relationship. I always try to keep in mind how small our "sample" is for our research.
That said, the bird appearing or disappearing is exactly the type of thing that interests me as it helps to show relationships. Sometimes, clear copying errors can be seen by comparing and contrasting. Sometime, perhaps some invention. Certainly, comparing the Tarot de Marseille I and II is absolutely fascinating to see what they have in common and how they differ. Even comparing decks like the Chosson and the Conver, which on the surface seem like duplicates, show many little differences in the lines. Many, many enjoyable hours can be spent studying these things, and it's probably what I enjoy most about the cards.
I think the critical thing to keep in mind about the time period is that we have to look at the early *remaining* TdMs from the point of view that they are the few, few chance survivors, and that they represent a miniscule number of the original decks, probably most with minor variations. I always keep this quote from Dummett in mind:
“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.”
So, out of a million, in France, in the 1600s, four remain. Of those, we have the Noblet, and possibly the Chosson as Tarot de Marseille, and the Vieville if we'd like to include it because of its obvious relationship. I always try to keep in mind how small our "sample" is for our research.
That said, the bird appearing or disappearing is exactly the type of thing that interests me as it helps to show relationships. Sometimes, clear copying errors can be seen by comparing and contrasting. Sometime, perhaps some invention. Certainly, comparing the Tarot de Marseille I and II is absolutely fascinating to see what they have in common and how they differ. Even comparing decks like the Chosson and the Conver, which on the surface seem like duplicates, show many little differences in the lines. Many, many enjoyable hours can be spent studying these things, and it's probably what I enjoy most about the cards.