Re: Dating the François Chosson Tarot?
Posted: 24 Apr 2008, 08:18
Thanks OnePotato, superb!
With letters of the same proportions, SELLON fits perfectly.
Ross
With letters of the same proportions, SELLON fits perfectly.
Ross
Over 500 years of history in 78 cards
https://forum.tarothistory.com/
it does indeed... more so for the Noblet.it seems that the Noblet pattern (at least -- perhaps also the Chosson/Conver pattern) is probably a very close copy of the Milanese standard pattern
Evasive indeed.mjhurst wrote:Hi, Ross,
An outstanding bit of detective work. Congratulations.
Back in February (about a week before you posted your findings and analysis to Aeclectic), Robert asked where I stood on the question of dating the Chosson deck. "Firmly on the side of whoever tells the best story", was my evasive reply.
mjhurst wrote:At the time, I suggested that the best story seemed to be backing the later dating. Now I'm switching sides -- always the pushover for better evidence and/or argument.
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:There is a problem stylistically though. This Tarot de Marseille is "TdMII" by Depaulis' taxonomy...
So if this tarot was engraved in Marseille in 1672, then it is a very early example of the Tarot de Marseille II type.
What popular line of speculation? If you're referring to me, then I think I've been misunderstood. I've never intended to suggest that drastic changes happened to some unknown design. My point is that details on the cards seem to have been lost or changed. I think pieces of thrones were lost, clothing got confused, floor patterns changed... but that basically all the Tarot de Marseille decks are pretty consistent in the general content. I do think the Cary Sheet is a big question. You think it's just a one off luxury deck. Perhaps. I don't know, and I think it worth exploring. I think it's interesting to compare the differences in the decks, and try to discover what they might suggest for WHY they were changed. Does it matter if the Pope holds a triple cross or a crosier? Not in the big picture scheme of the "meaning" of the card, but I think it's interesting to ponder why they are shown with a Crosier on TdMI and Triple Cross on TdMII. Could it give us a clue about the decks? Maybe.mjhurst wrote:I'm not sure if that's a stylistic problem with the evidence or a problem of mistaken preconceptions with the conventional wisdom. The idea that Tarot de Marseille underwent some dramatic evolution over a period of two centuries, (with the supposed Tarot de Marseille I to Tarot de Marseille II mutation being a late and minor example of that evolutionary process), is just a theory, and is based on extremely fragmentary evidence. The facts appear to be that at some unknown time in the 15th century, some unknown standard pattern(s) from Milan made its way into France and began being produced there. At some point, again unknown, the names and borders were added. That's pretty vague, and beyond that, we're swimming in really deep conjecture.
The popular line of speculation seems to be that what traveled to France was very different than Tarot de Marseille. It was a hypothetical deck of some unknown design. Subsequently, many changes were wrought, leading eventually to Tarot de Marseille, and subsequent to the development the different branches of Tarot de Marseille. But there seems to be no necessity for introducing such a hypothetical deck, and several good reasons (in addition to parsimony) for concluding that the Milanese standard pattern of the 15th century was probably much like Tarot de Marseille.
We don't know that. We know that ONE example of the Tarot de Marseille I shows up in Paris at the time. We know that MAYBE a Tarot de Marseille II from Marseille shows up around a similar time. I don't know that either was standard, or should be connected to a region. The Payen family is originally from Marseille, and their decks are Tarot de Marseille I. The Tarot de Marseille I "style" shows up in the Belgian, and the Besancon, and in the Marseille, as well as the Cary Sheet. Without dating the Chosson to 1672, then the first sample of Tarot de Marseille II is from 1709.mjhurst wrote:Given your dating here, it seems that Noblet (Tarot de Marseille I) and Chosson (Tarot de Marseille II) decks are both attested from about the same time. One pattern was standard in Paris, the other in Marseilles.
I'm not so sure about that. First, they are from different decks. The Sun has the Number inside a reserved area, the World has the number added to the border. The World strikes me as an example of an older deck. The Sun may indeed be contemporaneous with the Noblet. An earlier researcher stated that (I'll have to find the reference) says that the cards were earlier, and I agree. At least, I think the Sforza Castle World card is an example of the type of deck that ALL of our existing Tarot de Marseille cards are based on.mjhurst wrote:However, the interesting question is not the dating of the specific decks but the dating of the patterns which they exemplify. There are so few surviving Milanese or French standard pattern decks prior to the 1700s that we have to make some inferences.
Good direct evidence simply doesn't exist, but we know that Tarot was played in Milan in the 1440s, and that Tarot went to France at that time or not long after. Marcello's package included a Tarot deck, and also a special deck with instructions. Despite calling it a new game(?), the Tarot deck required no description and no instructions, so it appears that Tarot was quite widely known as early as 1449. (I hate recounting this stuff to you because you know so much more of it, and much better than I do.) In 1450 the Visconti letter indicates that decks were a commodity available in different grades, and one of the earliest Ferrarese references indicates that relatively cheap Tarot decks were being sold by a Bolognese merchant. And so on...
So, what kind of deck was used in Milan -- and France -- in the 1400s? Was it something quite unknown to us, or was it was essentially a Tarot de Marseille deck, albeit without the nifty border and names? We have some pretty good evidence for the latter from the surviving Sforza Castle Sun and World cards. The Milanese deck from which they came was roughly contemporaneous with the Parisian Noblet, but from a Milanese tradition.
But it doesn't really indicate when they split. There is no reason to suspect at this point that he Tarot de Marseille II is any older than 1709, or perhaps 1672. There is reason to suspect the the Tarot de Marseille I is, (Cary Sheet, Belgian, Besançon, and also later Italian decks like the Drago).mjhurst wrote:The two lines of descent appear to have been separated for a long time, and yet the iconography is virtually identical -- a great example of the well-known conservatism of card makers and their patrons. The only reasonable explanation seems to be that Noblet and the Sforza Castle decks had a common ancestor in the 15th-century Milanese standard pattern, which is also suggested by the 1499 Two of Coins and by the stylish variant deck known as the Cary Sheet.
Again, I think you and I basically agree on this. I'm just not as certain as you are. And I need to say, I'm also not as certain about the whole "Tarot de Marseille I and II" thing as I sound. I've even questioned to myself if the "Tarot de Marseille I' is really nothing more than an adaptation of the Tarot de Marseille II as it moved into the North and became the Besancon or Belgian. I just don't think we have enough of these early decks to really know. The reason I'm so obsessed with comparing the details is because I believe it helps to sort this question out, at least a bit. I can see relationships and interdependencies that indicate inheritance.mjhurst wrote:To me, it seems that the Noblet pattern (at least -- perhaps also the Chosson/Conver pattern) is probably a very close copy of the Milanese standard pattern, despite being first attested two centuries later in France. Except for the names and frames, it might be virtually identical. So I'm not sure how much evolution we need to postulate, or where/when it should be assumed to have taken place.
Best regards,
Michael