Rusty Neon
Lee said:
I second that. One can never say thanks often enough.
What makes a Marseilles?
I second that. One can never say thanks often enough.
jmd
I agree with Major Tom when he says that there is more to characterising a Marseille than simply the Ace of Cups and the Hanged Man. My comment there was more in specific distinction and reference to the Swiss-styles that otherwise appear ever-so closely similar to the Marseille.
As Major Tom says, the pomels on the swords - or the lack of them - is also a characteristic with regards to the the scimitar representations on the suit.
When ihcoyc says that
In determining whether a deck is or is not a Marseille, I personally do not consider that it is the historical notion that characterises the deck - and in that sense do indeed consider the Tarot de Paris not a Marseille.
Each Marseille will indeed have that quality of the 'ballad that changes slightly each time' - at what stage, however, would that same ballad be determined to have modified itself sufficiently for a historical connection to still of course be retained, but the ballad itself having become something other than it was - ie, not that ballad any longer (no matter how beautiful and useful and everything else a ballad may be)?
This is the question that may indeed still be asked. Likewise for the Marseille. As Wittgenstein said of characterising a game (actually, if I recall, he talked of the attempt to define 'game'), the Marseille (or the Tarot) may not have a specific set of definitions which would be such as to exactly collectively and only capture the Marseille (or Tarot)... this does not mean, however, that the Marseille does not have essential characteristics that only ongoing study will begin to unveil.
To my personal mind, the Marseille is not to be defined in the least by indexation to an early (or late) specimen. These specimens are, rather, 'merely' examplars of the Marseille, not absolutes from which there may be no deviation. The deviations, however, need to be consistent with that more ephemeral quality of the Marseille, and in that sense both the Camoin-Jodorowsky and the Hadar indeed more or less become reflections.
In this sense, then also, no instance of what I consider examples of the Marseille are 'totally' true to the Marseille if what we understand by it is that each other Marseille deck must conform without deviation. With ihcoyc, I too here write that 'Tarot is not a work of authorship with a single author who wrote a single definitive edition'. However, perhaps disagreeing with most hereon, I would add that Tarot remains a work in potential within the spiritual realms, to be variously incarnated within the Tree of Tarot (for which I have previously made the analogy as to what I consider the central core, or, rather the trunk of that Tree).
Of course, it seems that in recent times some have taken this view, which I in each instance seek to explain and expound in the best way I can, to be read in a more negative sense... this is certainly not so on my part. Rather, there is indeed a view that considers that though numerous decks can be utterly and wonderfully useful and beautiful and have their own, indeed, allegorical and symbolic structures, it is a different question as to whether the deck designed is a Marseille (if this is what is being discussed) or indeed a Tarot (if this is what is claimed).
A claim for a wonderful deck based even on another does not make it Tarot, likewise a ballad based on one travelling the high seas makes the new ballad a one about travelling the high seas, even if inspired of modelled on it: the ballad, or the deck, must itself be considered.
When I have time, I will post another analogy on the same considerations - and I trust it may be read (if at all) with that positive open-ness with which I offer this and other posts.
As Major Tom says, the pomels on the swords - or the lack of them - is also a characteristic with regards to the the scimitar representations on the suit.
When ihcoyc says that
I also have to agree... with qualifications - qualifications already in part highlighted by Diana's comment regarding to shift in intended meaning with regards to the vair or which Cinderella's slippers were fashioned.
In determining whether a deck is or is not a Marseille, I personally do not consider that it is the historical notion that characterises the deck - and in that sense do indeed consider the Tarot de Paris not a Marseille.
Each Marseille will indeed have that quality of the 'ballad that changes slightly each time' - at what stage, however, would that same ballad be determined to have modified itself sufficiently for a historical connection to still of course be retained, but the ballad itself having become something other than it was - ie, not that ballad any longer (no matter how beautiful and useful and everything else a ballad may be)?
This is the question that may indeed still be asked. Likewise for the Marseille. As Wittgenstein said of characterising a game (actually, if I recall, he talked of the attempt to define 'game'), the Marseille (or the Tarot) may not have a specific set of definitions which would be such as to exactly collectively and only capture the Marseille (or Tarot)... this does not mean, however, that the Marseille does not have essential characteristics that only ongoing study will begin to unveil.
To my personal mind, the Marseille is not to be defined in the least by indexation to an early (or late) specimen. These specimens are, rather, 'merely' examplars of the Marseille, not absolutes from which there may be no deviation. The deviations, however, need to be consistent with that more ephemeral quality of the Marseille, and in that sense both the Camoin-Jodorowsky and the Hadar indeed more or less become reflections.
In this sense, then also, no instance of what I consider examples of the Marseille are 'totally' true to the Marseille if what we understand by it is that each other Marseille deck must conform without deviation. With ihcoyc, I too here write that 'Tarot is not a work of authorship with a single author who wrote a single definitive edition'. However, perhaps disagreeing with most hereon, I would add that Tarot remains a work in potential within the spiritual realms, to be variously incarnated within the Tree of Tarot (for which I have previously made the analogy as to what I consider the central core, or, rather the trunk of that Tree).
Of course, it seems that in recent times some have taken this view, which I in each instance seek to explain and expound in the best way I can, to be read in a more negative sense... this is certainly not so on my part. Rather, there is indeed a view that considers that though numerous decks can be utterly and wonderfully useful and beautiful and have their own, indeed, allegorical and symbolic structures, it is a different question as to whether the deck designed is a Marseille (if this is what is being discussed) or indeed a Tarot (if this is what is claimed).
A claim for a wonderful deck based even on another does not make it Tarot, likewise a ballad based on one travelling the high seas makes the new ballad a one about travelling the high seas, even if inspired of modelled on it: the ballad, or the deck, must itself be considered.
When I have time, I will post another analogy on the same considerations - and I trust it may be read (if at all) with that positive open-ness with which I offer this and other posts.
Cerulean
La Pandu in profile with two feet tied as a characteristic
of re-creations of the Swiss version of 1804, yes, I can see that is a variation. (It is titled La Pandu in my Marsiglia). Also the furry thighs of the devil is more like the Northern Italian tarots, according to Paul Huson.
Thanks for others pointing out different characteristics that make the 1804 different from a standard Marseilles, more characteristic of another pattern...I have to renew my acquaintance with sites that point out differences such as below:
http://www.trigono.com/tarots/tarocco-marsigliese-svizzero.htm
Just fyi, there is a clear Emperor and Empress in my version of the 1804 Marsiglia...
Regards,
Cerulean happily trying to figure things out...grateful to Lee and others and delighted you are talking about my pretty tarot at all...
P.S. The Trigono's site lighter-appearing cards really look like my lovely Marsiglia variation in person...the blues are lighter, faded, the rose is soft and there only seems to be faded gray-blues to Prussian blue, carmine, rose and old gold hues on the ivory card face...sigh...
of re-creations of the Swiss version of 1804, yes, I can see that is a variation. (It is titled La Pandu in my Marsiglia). Also the furry thighs of the devil is more like the Northern Italian tarots, according to Paul Huson.
Thanks for others pointing out different characteristics that make the 1804 different from a standard Marseilles, more characteristic of another pattern...I have to renew my acquaintance with sites that point out differences such as below:
http://www.trigono.com/tarots/tarocco-marsigliese-svizzero.htm
Just fyi, there is a clear Emperor and Empress in my version of the 1804 Marsiglia...
Regards,
Cerulean happily trying to figure things out...grateful to Lee and others and delighted you are talking about my pretty tarot at all...
P.S. The Trigono's site lighter-appearing cards really look like my lovely Marsiglia variation in person...the blues are lighter, faded, the rose is soft and there only seems to be faded gray-blues to Prussian blue, carmine, rose and old gold hues on the ivory card face...sigh...
mythos
ihcoyc said:
After over-hearing jmd make a reference at the post-Conference Tarot Cafe to the lack of pommels on swords being one distinguishing feature of a Marseille deck ... I have been fossiking through my various decks and wondering what is, and what is not Marseille .... always with a concern for arbitrary distinction which can become set in concrete as hard and fast rules.
ihcoyc, you have made this point exactly. At the same time, this discussion is utterly fascinating, and gives me more points of comparison to examine deck by deck. I don't always see these.
My view tends to be that, if we start creating hard and fast rules, rather than indicators for future reference and study, we may just 'kill off' a tradition by confining it to a suffocating coffin of rules of our own making.
mythos
venicebard
I guess that means he doesn’t consider Grimaud to be Tarot de Marseille? I find that a bit weird, as in my opinion it varies least from the original intent of any versions I know of, though I don't have a Conver close at hand to compare (I should get one).mythos said:
The key phrase here would be “of our own making,” with which I heartily concur. Certainly, without something more than impressions, or a feeling, rules have little meaning. I pontificate regularly on whether certain patterns on cards (mainly trumps and court cards, which are the crucial ones in this respect) are what I consider ‘mainline’ or genuine. My judgments are based on something deeper than comparison though, for I claim to have found the key to the original system of thought used by its designers and thus (theoretically at least) have a proper touchstone for whether certain details are original or added/altered. But it seems to me that simply examining various decks—an indispensable exercise to be sure—alone will tend to (and has, from my observation) lead one often into error.
I am all for having something with some claim to solidity as touchstone for error and not excluding pommels, for instance, on too flimsy a basis (though of course I did not hear jmd’s reasons and might therefore have found that his were weighty, as he does not seem the frivolous type). Even with the key I think I possess, I must admit to uncertainty concerning many things, which I may still opine over but will be less inclined to state as ‘hard and fast’.
mythos
Needless to say, I can't speak for jmd ... and it was just a scrap of information I overheard while in the midst of a multitude of conversations. Consequently ... I have no idea what else he added (or subtracted)... nor in what ways he expanded on the subject. I merely used it as an example of somthing that got me thinking. jmd certainly is a man of great depth, particularly with his committment and years of study of tarot ... and TdM in particular.
mythos
mythos
jmd
My comment about the lack of hilts on the swords of a Marseille deck refers to the suit of swords (excluding the Ace), and not depicted swords in general (for example, on VIII or the courts).
I tend to personally prefer to actually see the hilts on the suit, as in, for example, the Schaffhouse and some very early decks.
This does not, however, take away from the Marseille has having this as a characteristic depiction. Personally, if I was to design a deck, I would very likely revert to the inclusion of depicting sword hilts being actually shown, thereby rendering the deck a non-standard 'Marseille'... but rather something akin to a deck having Lyon-Besançon-Schaffhouse influence.
I tend to personally prefer to actually see the hilts on the suit, as in, for example, the Schaffhouse and some very early decks.
This does not, however, take away from the Marseille has having this as a characteristic depiction. Personally, if I was to design a deck, I would very likely revert to the inclusion of depicting sword hilts being actually shown, thereby rendering the deck a non-standard 'Marseille'... but rather something akin to a deck having Lyon-Besançon-Schaffhouse influence.
Lee
I just noticed that the Rodes-Sanchez deck also has hilts on the Sword pip cards.
-- Lee
-- Lee
le pendu
I think this is just another example of the historical research that Rodes-Sanchez put into their deck.
When you break out of the TdM=THIS mode, and start to explore all of the historical decks from this period, you begin to see a "family" with unique characteristics, but individuality as well.
The Swiss TdM has the wonderful Le Pendu that is an almost exact match to the Geofroy Catelin from 1557 (a hundred years before ANY existing "TdM").
The Besancon family of tarots have many subtle details that may harken back to very early decks.
What I love about the Rhodes-Sanchez is that they "did their homework", and were able to look at all of these decks as contributing to a bigger whole. They were able to move beyond Conver=TdM, or Noblet=TdM, or Dodal=Tdm, and see the wonderful VARIETY that occured during tarot's evolution, and incorporate lots of these characteristics into their deck.
best,
robert
When you break out of the TdM=THIS mode, and start to explore all of the historical decks from this period, you begin to see a "family" with unique characteristics, but individuality as well.
The Swiss TdM has the wonderful Le Pendu that is an almost exact match to the Geofroy Catelin from 1557 (a hundred years before ANY existing "TdM").
The Besancon family of tarots have many subtle details that may harken back to very early decks.
What I love about the Rhodes-Sanchez is that they "did their homework", and were able to look at all of these decks as contributing to a bigger whole. They were able to move beyond Conver=TdM, or Noblet=TdM, or Dodal=Tdm, and see the wonderful VARIETY that occured during tarot's evolution, and incorporate lots of these characteristics into their deck.
best,
robert
prudence
I've read this entire thread, veruy interesting....but, which way is the TdM way for Le Pendu? I realize my Vandenborre Bacchus' Le Pendu is not quite TdM (he is somehow upright, though still depicted hanging from a tree)....Hanging by left leg, with right leg bent, is this the Marseilles way?
Also, any Bolognese tarot is not considered Marseilles?
Apologies if these questions are answered somewhere else. Thank you for the help (and patience!).
Also, any Bolognese tarot is not considered Marseilles?
Apologies if these questions are answered somewhere else. Thank you for the help (and patience!).
