Exploring the Cary Sheet

Ross G Caldwell said:

That's a good observation... I've never read any arguments for the date of the sheet except Dummett's (I don't know if there are any others), and he doesn't mention the clothing (or any particular detail) as a reason for his dating c. 1500.

I don't know clothing well enough to know if it's helpful here. To me, it looks like it could be anywhere between 1450 and 1500; but I don't know if certain styles went into the 16th century (the tight headpiece on some women is typical of late 15th century; perhaps we can even say c. 1480. That would be a shocker for dating this sheet! - but I could be wrong.)

Click to expand...

I frankly wouldn't be surprised by a very early dating... not only because of the lack of titles, but because of the lack of numbers as well. So many of the early decks show the numbers creeping into the designs. Here there is no attempt to do so. Maybe there is a clue in the clothing or some other feature of the sheet.

I would love to narrow it down to a time and place. I consider the Cary Sheet one of the great mysteries of Tarot.

le pendu said:

I frankly wouldn't be surprised by a very early dating... not only because of the lack of titles, but because of the lack of numbers as well. So many of the early decks show the numbers creeping into the designs. Here there is no attempt to do so. Maybe there is a clue in the clothing or some other feature of the sheet.

I would love to narrow it down to a time and place. I consider the Cary Sheet one of the great mysteries of Tarot.

Click to expand...

I do too. For instance the Pope is really simply a Bishop, as in the Goldschmidt cards (Kaplan I, p. 110) - and they are another mystery of tarot.

The Goldschmidt are Spanish style Latin suited (non-interlaced) batons, however, whereas Cary sheet shows Italian style (interlaced) batons.

This doesn't help placing it... this is classic "TdM" style batons, so it could be anywhere TdMs were made.

Ross G Caldwell said:

I do too. For instance the Pope is really simply a Bishop, as in the Goldschmidt cards (Kaplan I, p. 110) - and they are another mystery of tarot.

Click to expand...

Ah! Hmmm. I identified "The Pope" as "The Popess", looking now at Kaplan He has it listed as "The Popess or possibly the Popess".. So I suppose either could be correct. It certainly makes more sense with considering the second figure, the hand blessing, and the holding the crosier. I guess I focused on the book and lack of triple tiera.

Looking now.. the order of the cards is often descending when compared to the TdM. Sun-Moon-Star... Tower-Devil-Temperance... Chariot-Lovers. If so, that would make sense for Pope-Emperor-Empress-Popess. I'll have to update those posts!

Ross G Caldwell said:

The Goldschmidt are Spanish style Latin suited (non-interlaced) batons, however, whereas Cary sheet shows Italian style (interlaced) batons.

This doesn't help placing it... this is classic "TdM" style batons, so it could be anywhere TdMs were made.

Click to expand...

One very interesting thing though about the batons is, again, the lack of numbers! Compare these cards to the Conver, Dodal or Noblet and you'll notice that the numbers on the side have been added, and the ornament, as shown on the Cary Sheet, has been lost. Several cards in the Sforza Castle show this as well. Even the Jacques Vieville has retained the ornament rather than the number. I can't help but feel that the TdM decks replaced the earlier ornament rather than someone later replacing a number with an ornament. Therefore I have to assume that the baton pictured in the Cary-Sheet predate the batons pictured in the TdM. HOW FAR back.. ah.. that is the question!

Here's an example from the Sforza Castle, Jacques Vieville, Jean Dodal, and Nicolas Conver:

le pendu said:

Ah! Hmmm. I identified "The Pope" as "The Popess", looking now at Kaplan He has it listed as "The Popess or possibly the Popess".. So I suppose either could be correct. It certainly makes more sense with considering the second figure, the hand blessing, and the holding the crosier. I guess I focused on the book and lack of triple tiera.

Looking now.. the order of the cards is often descending when compared to the TdM. Sun-Moon-Star... Tower-Devil-Temperance... Chariot-Lovers. If so, that would make sense for Pope-Emperor-Empress-Popess. I'll have to update those posts!

Click to expand...

I always understood the mysterious half-cut figure to be the Papesse - for the reason you cite, the descending order.

I can't tell what kind of head-gear "she" has on, however; it looks like it could be a veil or hood drawn up over her head.

Perhaps the loss of the Triple Tiara (or "triregno") on the "Pope" is one way of removing offense to the Papacy (which was sometimes a problem, and several solutions have been used over the centuries). That fact *still* wouldn't help dating it, however, since it could have been anytime.

One very interesting thing though about the batons is, again, the lack of numbers! Compare these cards to the Conver, Dodal or Noblet and you'll notice that the numbers on the side have been added, and the ornament, as shown on the Cary Sheet, has been lost. Several cards in the Sforza Castle show this as well. Even the Jacques Vieville has retained the ornament rather than the number. I can't help but feel that the TdM decks replaced the earlier ornament rather than someone later replacing a number with an ornament. Therefore I have to assume that the baton pictured in the Cary-Sheet predate the batons pictured in the TdM. HOW FAR back.. ah.. that is the question!

Here's an example from the Sforza Castle, Jacques Vieville, Jean Dodal, and Nicolas Conver:

Click to expand...

Very nice comparisons, thanks. Yes, the Cary sheet is certainly early, but as Vieville and Sforza castle show (I think 1600 or later is the accepted dating for this card) this design persisted for centuries before the flowers were replaced by numbers.

Oh this mute sheet! How tantalizing, like it's saying something in a whisper that you can hardly make out.

Ross G Caldwell said:

Very nice comparisons, thanks. Yes, the Cary sheet is certainly early, but as Vieville and Sforza castle show (I think 1600 or later is the accepted dating for this card) this design persisted for centuries before the flowers were replaced by numbers.

Click to expand...

Right, my point is that none of the TdM cards (that I know of) have the ornament. So I have to assume that all of the versions that we have are based on something earlier that did have the ornament. This earlier design was retained in the Sforza Castle and Vieville, but lost to the TdM. The Cary Sheet is just another example of the earlier design... but does not prove it as an early date.

best,
robert

le pendu said:

The Sun
On the next row we come to a fragment of The Sun. This depiction seems exceptionally odd because The Moon and The Star seem so very similar to the TdM model. Yet here the creator of the Cary Sheet used a very different model.

Where the card is wildly different is the representation under the sun. The TdM style decks show two figures with a wall behind them. Here it seems that only one figure is presented.

Andy Pollet has a wonderful page about the Cary Sheet on his site showing a possible reconstruction of what the card may have originally looked like:
http://it.geocities.com/a_pollett/cards69.htm

It seems probably that the figure is holding a banner, as is similarly shown in the Jacques Vieville Tarot

Click to expand...

I tend to think there were two figures in this card, rather than just one standing with a banner.

What is interesting for me, is that the figure looks like a child, whereas, if we follow the logic of Depaulis' TdM I and II classifications, the "children" on the Sun in TdM II style came about later, as a softening of the eroticism of the obvious man and woman of the TdM I.

If it is a child, and this sheet is related to TdMs in some way, than either the TdM II style goes back much further than Depaulis thinks, or the Cary sheet is much later than it appears.

I think it is early (the Devil is particularly "archaic" looking, besides the clothing styles and general aspect), and that therefore the figure on the Sun must be of a distinct gender that we cannot see.

My overall belief is that the Cary sheet is an Italianisation of a French tarot style, engraved after 1499 (but could be earlier and still a reaction). I don't think, in other words, that the Cary sheet represents the *proto-type* Milanese tarot that was exported to France in the wake of the French invasion of 1499.

This is because we know that Avignon (and Lyon) was already making tarots for export (and Avignon's product went to Pinerolo near Turin at least) by 1505, and probably earlier; if Milanese or any Italian maker had been making enough cards to have such a decisive influence on the French market in so short a time, it is difficult to think this would all have turned around for no apparent reason so that they would *importing* French cards!

The Petrus Castelleto 2 of Denari (1499) shows that the model for the TdM 2 of Deniers pip existed in Milan at this date. Could this have been the moment that a native milanese cardmaker copied the French model? Or is this pip too generic, and could be related to the older Italian strata?

The Devil

The Devil in the Cary sheet is pretty unique.

The basket on his back is unique to this set, I think. In the Southern packs, the early Devils could be eating people (Rothschild/Beaux-Arts; Hebreo devil) or just using a pitchfork (Rosenwald sheets); in the B style (Budapest/Met. Museum) he has a pitchfork over his shoulder. In France, the earliest Devils show a variety, some with implements, some not. Never eating people.

Ross G Caldwell said:

I tend to think there were two figures in this card, rather than just one standing with a banner.

What is interesting for me, is that the figure looks like a child, whereas, if we follow the logic of Depaulis' TdM I and II classifications, the "children" on the Sun in TdM II style came about later, as a softening of the eroticism of the obvious man and woman of the TdM I.

If it is a child, and this sheet is related to TdMs in some way, than either the TdM II style goes back much further than Depaulis thinks, or the Cary sheet is much later than it appears.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. I'm simply not sure. I'm willing to go with two figures because it would make so much more sense when put with the Moon and Star. It would force the two figures VERY close together as nearly half of the card is shown without even completing the first figure. Even if so, I'm not sure I agree with you about it being child-like. I think it could just as likely be a very erotic version of the card with entirely/mostly nude adult figures in a very close embrace.

As for the TdM I and TdMII. It will be very difficult to convince me that Depaulis is wrong. To me the evidence is overwhelming that the TdM I style predates. Just looking at the Cary Sheet itself brings up similarities to TdM I, and none that I can see to TdM II (missing second naked child aside.. ).

I think it is early (the Devil is particularly "archaic" looking, besides the clothing styles and general aspect), and that therefore the figure on the Sun must be of a distinct gender that we cannot see.

Click to expand...

I agree that the Devil seems very old. Will make a future post to discuss him.

My overall belief is that the Cary sheet is an Italianisation of a French tarot style, engraved after 1499 (but could be earlier and still a reaction). I don't think, in other words, that the Cary sheet represents the *proto-type* Milanese tarot that was exported to France in the wake of the French invasion of 1499.

This is because we know that Avignon (and Lyon) was already making tarots for export (and Avignon's product went to Pinerolo near Turin at least) by 1505, and probably earlier; if Milanese or any Italian maker had been making enough cards to have such a decisive influence on the French market in so short a time, it is difficult to think this would all have turned around for no apparent reason so that they would *importing* French cards!

Click to expand...

Here is where your knowledge of history is really important, it's the setting and the time that really make all the difference. I'm still trying to place things, and realize that I have have a very limited historical knowledge... that's why I am so curious and easily amazed.

I guess the fundamental question about the TdM is... How far back does it go?

We know that there were cardmakers in the early 1500s in France, but how certain are we of the "style" of deck they were making? The earliest existing TdM that we have is the Jean Noblet... circa 1650 (I'm absolutely not saying it was the first).

So it makes sense that, at its most elementary level, the TdM was probably first being produced sometime between 1450 and 1650... that's two hundred years of wiggle room. How do we know that the "first" TdM wasn't created in 1550 or say 1575? Wouldn't that still have left enough time for it to "borrow" from other style, define itself, make modifications, and still show up as it does in the Jean Noblet?

So that brings up the Cary Sheet. We have several TdM style cards on the sheet.. so does this prove that the TdM style existed at least as early as the Cary Sheet? I make the assumption that the two are intimately connected in one way or another.

I'm also not saying that the Cary Sheet is the Proto-TdM. Although I do consider it just as likely as not that it could reflect a stage of mutation/experimentation that led to the TdM. It could also just as likely be a strange collection of different decks, similar in that way to what the Jacques Vieville seems.

The Petrus Castelleto 2 of Denari (1499) shows that the model for the TdM 2 of Deniers pip existed in Milan at this date. Could this have been the moment that a native milanese cardmaker copied the French model? Or is this pip too generic, and could be related to the older Italian strata?

Click to expand...

Right, so we have the card like a TdM Two of Coins. It might be based on an Italian deck (well actually.. it would seem so wouldn't it?). Who knows.. maybe one of the missing Cary Sheets might have had the information on it.. with a date!

best,
robert

le pendu said:

Hmmm. I'm simply not sure. I'm willing to go with two figures because it would make so much more sense when put with the Moon and Star. It would force the two figures VERY close together as nearly half of the card is shown without even completing the first figure. Even if so, I'm not sure I agree with you about it being child-like. I think it could just as likely be a very erotic version of the card with entirely/mostly nude adult figures in a very close embrace.

Click to expand...

I agree; I think they would be very close together. But the deck has so many other differences from TdMs, that it is hazardous to guess.

As for the TdM I and TdMII. It will be very difficult to convince me that Depaulis is wrong. To me the evidence is overwhelming that the TdM I style predates. Just looking at the Cary Sheet itself brings up similarities to TdM I, and none that I can see to TdM II (missing second naked child aside.. ).

Click to expand...

I fully agree. I think Depaulis is right (and this was 20 years ago he came up with it!), and I think you are right about the Cary sheet having "TdM I" characteristics.

We know that there were cardmakers in the early 1500s in France, but how certain are we of the "style" of deck they were making? The earliest existing TdM that we have is the Jean Noblet... circa 1650 (I'm absolutely not saying it was the first).

Click to expand...

We don't know exactly of course, but simultaneously in Avignon and Ferrara (within a few months of one another) in 1505 "taraux" and "tarochi" appear! I don't think it's coincidence... I believe it means that mass-production had reached a new level, and since the Avignon record says "taraux" is the "popular" or "common" name, this means it had some time to become common or popular. So we're looking for a "popular" type of printed deck, affordable. The popular decks of the time are represented by surviving fragments and sheets from around 1500, and by lists of trumps, Steele Sermon, Alciato, etc. Although they evolve, designs stay stable enough overall to recognize...

(where am I going with this?) okay - I think the popular "tarochi" of Ferrara looked like the B order Budapest sheets, and the popular "taraux" of Avignon probably looked like the Cary sheet, TdM order (C - more or less). The features of the Cary sheet are Italian (clothes, hair styles, overall *fineness* of the engraving) so we are dealing with Italian cards here, but we cannot get over the fact that the French were running Milan, Avignon was exporting taraux cards to Turin, and Lyon was the biggest cardmaking center of Europe at exactly this time - when this "brand" of cards is first mentioned.

My hypothesis has been for a while now, that the *native* and original Milanese designs, from the 1440s to 1490s, were simply overrun by French imports starting in 1499; Milan was one of the biggest cities in Europe (still is), and Lyon must have found a great new market here.

The same thing did not happen in other Italian cities, because France didn't control them and have as easy access to their markets. This is why we start hearing about the "C" order in Milan (and Pavia) and Savoy, first in 1543 (Alciato). The Cary sheet, even assuming it comes from Milan circa 1500, doesn't help to determine where the C order came from, since a French invasion and administration can still account for the Milanese adopting it.

Looking for precise information about the French administration of Milan during these years is an important area of research for us, and one I've barely begun.

So it makes sense that, at its most elementary level, the TdM was probably first being produced sometime between 1450 and 1650... that's two hundred years of wiggle room. How do we know that the "first" TdM wasn't created in 1550 or say 1575? Wouldn't that still have left enough time for it to "borrow" from other style, define itself, make modifications, and still show up as it does in the Jean Noblet?

So that brings up the Cary Sheet. We have several TdM style cards on the sheet.. so does this prove that the TdM style existed at least as early as the Cary Sheet? I make the assumption that the two are intimately connected in one way or another.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. We don't know when it was created exactly... but the Cary sheet seems early enough, and so similar in designs and order to the TdM, that it seems many aspects of TdM, essential aspects such as the distinct (from A and B) Star, Sun and Moon, and the ordering of the cards, were already in place then. As I said, this doesn't prove where it originated, and it IS so different from the other Italian tarots (and given the chronology and marketing facts above), that I think it must have been the order designed in France (Lyon, I suppose...)

I'm also not saying that the Cary Sheet is the Proto-TdM. Although I do consider it just as likely as not that it could reflect a stage of mutation/experimentation that led to the TdM. It could also just as likely be a strange collection of different decks, similar in that way to what the Jacques Vieville seems.

Click to expand...

I think it does reflect an early stage of TdM - an Italian adaptation of the French "taraux" then flooding the market.

Ross

Fascinating read, this thread!

A few brief notes on some points.

Regarding the two 'popes', it may of course be the case that instead of a Pope and Papess, what is depicted are two male 'popes' (bishops). Also, if we are indeed considering Avignon (or even Lyon), it may even be a harkening to some of the papal struggles that took place, and the appropriateness or otherwise of having a beard (only a couple of centuries earlier, stone-masons had threatened to burn all churches in France was an ecclesiastical edict for them to shave not rescinded).

In any case, in terms of depictions, and despite the Visconti-Sforza clarity of there being both papess and pope, the Cary sheet may be of two males.

With regards to the Devil, though there may be little evidence of devils consuming human beings on cards, there are many cathedrals that have stone carvings on the western side (usually above the central entry on the external panel) that depict clearly a post-death weighing of souls, with those doomed entering the mouth of a leviathan-type devil.

It is not a far-fetched possibility that devil-images included such variety.

The clothing mentioned by le pendu was previously discussed in a variety of threads, called 'Gates of Hell' surcoats by some.