Tarot History Forum

I want to comment a curiosity that I found on the deck of Vieville, the one that humbly I consider its inverted order like deliberately and nonproduct of an inverted impression... The indications like already mentioned that they continue contributing mysticism to him to these cards; for example in The Empress, when comparing it with the one of Noblet, watch straight to the front and their shield and sceptre are inverted, but they observe the eagle of the shield, in both cases watches towards the same side:

And also I want to remark that the head of the eagle is pointing towards the right as in the cases of all the decks from Noblet to Conver as far as I know. Even the Imperatrice holds the sceptre with his right hand as I said before.


another curiosity with respect to Vieville is its similarity as far as the direction with the rest of the historical ones in the XX:

With respect to the emblematical eagle on the shield, its sinister orientation is something that I personally find 'odd', and certainly, if we look at early hand-painted decks, a mirror image thereof. Even the Cary Sheet appears to have the eagle facing the opposite (and I would suggest the expected) dexter way:



Visconti-Sforza and Cary-Yale:

robert wrote: You can make up excuses about transparency as much as you'd like, but that's just not as simply an answer as "The Vieville is reversed".

But the figure is the same way as other figures of this type in other decks. In support of the possibility from another deck we have for example the ribbon on the D4 of the Tarot de Paris, here we see APARIS in reverse on the back of the ribbon, and PAR right way round from the front of the ribbon, so there is an example of inversion being purposely used to show the back of the ribbon.

Steve: There it is

Pablo Picasso’s very first engraving was titled “El picador zurdo”, this is, “The Left-Handed Picador”. Picasso titled it this way after making a very common mistake in engravings: forgetting that whatever you engrave in a plate will come up reversed in the final print. Picasso engraved a right-handed picador, but ended with a left-handed one by mistake. I am not necessarily saying that the Vieville was engraved the wrong way, but I wonder: how much insight can really be gained by examining plates and prints if we overlook the reality of the engraving process? I find peculiar our inclination to attribute some sort of uncanny wisdom to cardmakers, so every single mistake is taken as a wink at posterity. I am at loss at understanding the line of inquire here. What kind of insight are we seeking?

What’s next? Trying to map the emotional state of these cardmakers at the time they engraved their decks?

Do we really have to suspect a communicative intention in every single detail or mistake in these cards, when in truth, cards were close to crap, cheap prints done carelessly for people to run them down by playing and throw them away afterwards? No matter how much appreciation we may have for our engravers, they weren’t up to par with a Durer, for example. They were clumsy, and more important, woodcarving is a lot less precise than a copper-plate engraving. It was also cheaper and faster.

What could it mean that a printer had to cut the images off to include their names, other than that he may have been copying from images without these labels? The secret handshake from the order of the Vol-au-vent ? With all due respect, sometimes I read some of these discussions and feel we are back at our childhood “secret club”, peeking through the windows of our tree house and thinking that the neighbor’s wife is an alien because she is wearing a cucumber mask.

Comparing both The Empress in the Noblet and the Vieville, I wonder: what does really changes in the iconography? It is really there a monumental change that will explain... what?

I feel I am missing something here.

Best,


EE

Hello E.E.:
I think it s no a childish game,like to see who spit most farther as possible than the rest...
If Vieville deck is really reversed,many things change here.

1-The XXI card of Vieville has only the bull and the lion inverted,so not the angel and the eagle.
2-For example as you know in the case of the tdp also the figures at cards LE MAT or FOV,XIII and XV all walks towards to the left.
So must I suppose that the tdp also is a reversed deck ????
3-Regarding to engraving of course Durer was the pinnacle of it.
So I think it is unnecessary at not least free,cheaply and clumsy as you said,do a comparison with ours appreciate of "ours engravers".
They were clumsy ? /Ok,but theirs intention was not to make a piece of art,even I think the Conver deck is a decent and a beautiful one.
Theirs intention as you said was to do a deck to play cards,not less than this.
4-ROFL !!! -You said: "They were clumsy, and more important, woodcarving is a lot less precise than a copper-plate engraving. It was also cheaper and faster."

Certainly your knowledge about Art History is very childish,too "Salvat" collectable encyclopedia,Wikipedia fast reference to post here... /Very ready made,very fast food knowledge.
And for God sake !!! - This really stink ...
I was Art Teacher for 30 years and I never heard such ignorant conclusion,believe me Enrique.
And I regret too much to say this to you like this way.
But you was too unnecessary sarcastic here... ( "What’s next? Trying to map the emotional state of these cardmakers at the time they engraved their decks? " )
All said by you thanks by a ready-thought-stupidity
5-Regarding the III card I think it is important what lamort brought here.
He showed not less that in both cases the Empress is looking straight to us,as not seen in the others decks cases.
For example helps to explain the closer antiquity of both decks in comparison with the next decks ahead.
Also lamort showed that Vieville followed the pattern of the eagle head,this regarding the supposed reversed thesis of the deck.
6-Yes,I think you are missing a lot here my friend...
For example you also ignore the work of Jacoppo de Barbari from whom Durer learned too much in his trip to Italy (also it was easy for because I made it easy for you,you will find it a Wiki-ready-Pedia)
http://www.mfa.org/collections/search_a ... ll_start=1


7-Btw,Goya did his Caprichos on Aquatint,his style is lesser naturalistic than Durer,is he clumsy ???
Are you pairing skillful with the media to work ? / I expect it not please...

*Well as a gift for Easter receive this example of engraving did by Hans Baldung :
(Could be easy to find for you,because it is at Wikipedia...)
May be is not too perfect line engraving one,but depicts the image message I want to send to you in this sacred day...

http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... 0826155011

I've moved some posts that were off topic and/or not worthy of this forum to the Hall Closet.

Okay Mr. James my apologies from my side...

EnriqueEnriquez wrote:Comparing both The Empress in the Noblet and the Vieville, I wonder: what does really changes in the iconography? It is really there a monumental change that will explain... what?

I do not consider that it is a monumental change, but a peculiar and mainly pertinent detail in this topic… Sometimes the small details hide great answers, and I do not only talk about the tarot.

EnriqueEnriquez wrote:Pablo Picasso’s very first engraving was titled “El picador zurdo”, this is, “The Left-Handed Picador”. Picasso titled it this way after making a very common mistake in engravings: forgetting that whatever you engrave in a plate will come up reversed in the final print. Picasso engraved a right-handed picador, but ended with a left-handed one by mistake. I am not necessarily saying that the Vieville was engraved the wrong way, but I wonder: how much insight can really be gained by examining plates and prints if we overlook the reality of the engraving process? I find peculiar our inclination to attribute some sort of uncanny wisdom to cardmakers, so every single mistake is taken as a wink at posterity. I am at loss at understanding the line of inquire here. What kind of insight are we seeking?

What’s next? Trying to map the emotional state of these cardmakers at the time they engraved their decks?

Do we really have to suspect a communicative intention in every single detail or mistake in these cards, when in truth, cards were close to crap, cheap prints done carelessly for people to run them down by playing and throw them away afterwards? No matter how much appreciation we may have for our engravers, they weren’t up to par with a Durer, for example. They were clumsy, and more important, woodcarving is a lot less precise than a copper-plate engraving. It was also cheaper and faster.

What could it mean that a printer had to cut the images off to include their names, other than that he may have been copying from images without these labels? The secret handshake from the order of the Vol-au-vent ? With all due respect, sometimes I read some of these discussions and feel we are back at our childhood “secret club”, peeking through the windows of our tree house and thinking that the neighbor’s wife is an alien because she is wearing a cucumber mask.

Comparing both The Empress in the Noblet and the Vieville, I wonder: what does really changes in the iconography? It is really there a monumental change that will explain... what?

I feel I am missing something here.

Best,


EE

Hi Enrique,

Thanks for your thoughtful and provocative post. I tend to agree that as a group we tend to put an amazing amount of credence into what often ends up to be most likely just errors and novelties. I suppose that behind it all is a hope or desire that there is some secret that can be revealed by studying these details.

For me, I'm (at least for the most part) not hoping to find any mystical meaning. I'm interested in these details because I'm curious to see how tarot changed and evolved. I look for patterns and changes in patterns so that I might be able to see relationships between the designs. For instance, on the Heri the Emperor has an eagle head behind him as part of his throne. This shows up on other Besançon decks as well. I think I can see traces of it in decks like the Conver, but I'm curious to know why it isn't in the Noblet, especially since the Noblet is so obviously related to the Heri. The easy answer is that the Noblet is older and that the Heri is based on it. Yet, there are aspects in the Heri that I question if they might be "older" than the Noblet, and if they are in his deck and not in the Noblet, then do I have to assume that the Heri is related to the Noblet, but the relationship is not as obvious as I thought at first glance, and perhaps I can learn more about both decks, and ultimately other decks as well, if I can understand why they are different, and the way to find that is to notice how they are different.

Ultimately, I think your question comes down to the reason that we are studying tarot history and these decks in the first place. I agree with you that in most ways all of these decks are amazingly similar, and that the basic "message" of the card works no matter if I am seeing the Pope card from the Noblet, Dodal, Paris, or Vieville.

But my personal fascination is with the history and the relationships. I'm a fan of studying the history of Christianity as well. I love to compare Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.. and to bring in "Q", Signs, and early church documents. I'm interested in how the church was born and grew, and not so much in the faith itself. It's much the same with Tarot History, I enjoy studying the documents and comparing them, and I'm not so much worried about "the religion". So I too think we take the "tarot gospels" way too seriously sometimes, and we often read things into what are more than likely just mistakes or quirks. I think that most of our cardmakers would be astonished to know that we are using their cards for anything other than playing card games, and I doubt that they were in any way passing down some secret knowledge they thought existed and was hidden in the cards.

In the case of the Vieville, I think it's interesting to see how it compares with the other decks, especially since there is a lot of iconography in Vieville that, at least to me, seems to be "more complete" than what we have left in the remaining TdMs from the time and later. I hope that by understanding how Vieville was made and why the cards appear as they do, I can gain a better understanding of the relationship to the Tarot de Marseille, the Belgian, and tarot in general.

That, and I just love talking about my favourite deck.