Sophie
Fulgour said:
Says you. Noblet was incredibly vigorous and had the common touch. Conver's carver had a better, more accomplished trait de crayon than the Dodal carver. All perfect, all imperfect.
Comparative exercise
Says you. Noblet was incredibly vigorous and had the common touch. Conver's carver had a better, more accomplished trait de crayon than the Dodal carver. All perfect, all imperfect.
Fulgour
Hello!
It's very kind in its way and seems perfect for here.
I was looking for that word earlier today, imperfect.Helvetica said:
It's very kind in its way and seems perfect for here.
Shalott
Argh. I am starting to get frustrated. I thought discussing history is what we did here in the historical section. This is not the direction this thread has been going, pretty well from the very beginning. I'm about to forget about it altogether. I am left wondering: am I wording what I'd hoped for incorrectly? I must be because it seems like nobody really gets that I'm just trying to put some pieces of a historical puzzle together better for my understanding. Perhaps it's because many of you have read many of the books that I haven't and it's assumed that I have read them or something. There's probably some I won't be able to read at all in the near future as they are in FRENCH which I don't speak. Perhaps it's because the pieces of this puzzle I refer to don't exist and I was expected to know that already or something. I am no semantics guru - I am the type of person who calls all vehicles "cars" and all homes "houses" and I wonder if because of this, I have not been clear enough and at this point I don't even know how to be MORE clear. If nobody wants to actually discuss the historical puzzle with me, perhaps I should ask jmd to close the thread. I'm starting to regret that I ever posted it, after 4 pages now and very little if anything has been said to address the original point.
smleite
Shalott said:
I do this too, even if it drives my husband crazy.
Shalott, I can’t really help you with your questioning, but would like to say something that, not being an answer, I feel is somewhat related to the subject you brought: an element like the egg in La Papesse might not belong to a “reference” Marseilles deck, but has always been there, even if not clearly depicted. Like this one, there are several “foreign” elements that, at a certain point, a certain artist simply decided to “make visible”, but that were there in occult and no less powerful mode (if not in a more powerful mode, indeed – reason why I personally prefer them to be kept in-visible, in most cases). And, of course, there are elements that are simply abusive additions.
Sorry for not adding anything to your original post.
Silvia
jmd
I suspect that had the answer been clear and obvious, it would have earlier been included in someone's post.
Problem is, there are no records as such of which I know from the times or later that discusses specifically the symbolic inclusion or exclusion of details - what we have are the decks, the imprinted dates, some meticulous study of card-makers and printers by a handful of people, and extraneous details that progressively adds to our collective knowledge of the times.
The question as to why details 'changed' from the Dodal to the Conver may therefore even be a question that already assumes a specific primacy not necessarily assumed by the cardmakers themselves.
Let us assume that there are indeed certain key features and elements (which I personally consider there is). In addition to these are other details that possibly reflect more the specific mores and knowledge base of the artist, cardmaker, or community in which the deck is made.
The details such as the triple-nipple on one of the Devil's attendants may indeed form part of an important tradition, and one which was either unknown or omitted by Dodal - alternatively, it may be an innovation or unveiling of some important aspect not manifest in the earlier deck.
The Historical, relating to extant documents, would be simply answered if those documents were there. The why question as to alterations between decks separated by half a century and in two (albeit related) communities is one the strict historian has to, at this stage, shrug his or her shoulders and reply 'could be for myriad reasons, or none'.
If importance is given to precedence, then the dating gives the deck of greater merit. If detail becomes more important, then often a later deck will merit the same.
For myself, the 'why' as to differences becomes secondary to the noting of those differences. I find it interesting that smleite's post takes on the egg highlighted by Camoin on the Papesse as something that has always been there - in the shadows or twilight, so to speak.
That an artist indeed decides that something in the shadows is suddenly discovered and brought to light is wonderful for further study and careful future observation (and here Camoin's deck is superb: it brings to attention details from earlier decks many have otherwise missed).
Like smleite, however, I personally prefer that many of the details remain ambiguously invisible.
Problem is, there are no records as such of which I know from the times or later that discusses specifically the symbolic inclusion or exclusion of details - what we have are the decks, the imprinted dates, some meticulous study of card-makers and printers by a handful of people, and extraneous details that progressively adds to our collective knowledge of the times.
The question as to why details 'changed' from the Dodal to the Conver may therefore even be a question that already assumes a specific primacy not necessarily assumed by the cardmakers themselves.
Let us assume that there are indeed certain key features and elements (which I personally consider there is). In addition to these are other details that possibly reflect more the specific mores and knowledge base of the artist, cardmaker, or community in which the deck is made.
The details such as the triple-nipple on one of the Devil's attendants may indeed form part of an important tradition, and one which was either unknown or omitted by Dodal - alternatively, it may be an innovation or unveiling of some important aspect not manifest in the earlier deck.
The Historical, relating to extant documents, would be simply answered if those documents were there. The why question as to alterations between decks separated by half a century and in two (albeit related) communities is one the strict historian has to, at this stage, shrug his or her shoulders and reply 'could be for myriad reasons, or none'.
If importance is given to precedence, then the dating gives the deck of greater merit. If detail becomes more important, then often a later deck will merit the same.
For myself, the 'why' as to differences becomes secondary to the noting of those differences. I find it interesting that smleite's post takes on the egg highlighted by Camoin on the Papesse as something that has always been there - in the shadows or twilight, so to speak.
That an artist indeed decides that something in the shadows is suddenly discovered and brought to light is wonderful for further study and careful future observation (and here Camoin's deck is superb: it brings to attention details from earlier decks many have otherwise missed).
Like smleite, however, I personally prefer that many of the details remain ambiguously invisible.
Fulgour
It's like the difference between love and sex,Helvetica said:
and even lovely sex. Love is better than sex.
Love will answer more questions than history,Helvetica said:
and is more desireable. It lives in the moment.
Pythagorus may have been quite good in bed,Helvetica said:
but made his living teaching horny teenagers.
Shalott
jmd said:
I am fully willing to take responsibility for not being clear, as it seemed it was being suggested to not bother about it, which seems anathema to the "historical research" section! Or that it was thought I was trying to figure out which of these are more "Ur" like, whereas that may be part of it somewhere deeper, it really wasn't my goal. I apologize if my frustration was out of line.
jmd said:
Although the detective in me wants to gather us all up for a fact-finding mission to Marseille, Lyon, etc, which may involve shovels and microscopes, if there simply isn't any documentation, then there isn't. Being kind of geographically isolated from the hub of Marseille decks, I had only hoped that somewhere, there was a book or website that I could be refered to, SOMETHING, but if there just isn't...well, back to the drawing board - no pun intended.
smleite: I know you can't be here every second of every day - no apologies necessary, though I had hoped you would find your way to this thread.
Helvetica: the Noblet is on the wishlist...
fulgour:
jmd
The many detectives working on the various sites are possibly not as interested in Tarot as we are - and though documents may indeed have been found and looked through that would immensely add to our understanding, it remains for this combination of specific interest and precision as to what to look out for or be open to.
Personally, I suspect that some documents will be found, originating from the region in which Ross is currently located (though perhaps the document having been moved to a Parisian site some centuries ago) ... possibly (though remotely so from a historical perspective) written in Aramaic with Latin and poorly constructed Greek intersperced within the pages - with even Marseille-type illuminations gracing the pages... of course, many of us would indeed be delighted to find such a document!
The best (though containing errors) historical book easily available to date really begins with the details we would like after the time we are considering - and that is the book by Dummett, Decker and DePaulis.
DePaulis's earlier catalogue book reference for the Parisian exhibition is also likewise interesting and useful... as are the various books published on the Visconti.
Some of the careful work also arising out of (mainly it seems) Italy is, I am told, of superb quality... but again this is not what we seem to be specifically after.
The comparative exercise, in the meantime, highlights to details... to hopefully make our own keen eyes ready to recognise when some of us behold details from other areas of research that are relevant - and also increases our own appreciation for the decks and for Tarot.
Personally, I suspect that some documents will be found, originating from the region in which Ross is currently located (though perhaps the document having been moved to a Parisian site some centuries ago) ... possibly (though remotely so from a historical perspective) written in Aramaic with Latin and poorly constructed Greek intersperced within the pages - with even Marseille-type illuminations gracing the pages... of course, many of us would indeed be delighted to find such a document!
The best (though containing errors) historical book easily available to date really begins with the details we would like after the time we are considering - and that is the book by Dummett, Decker and DePaulis.
DePaulis's earlier catalogue book reference for the Parisian exhibition is also likewise interesting and useful... as are the various books published on the Visconti.
Some of the careful work also arising out of (mainly it seems) Italy is, I am told, of superb quality... but again this is not what we seem to be specifically after.
The comparative exercise, in the meantime, highlights to details... to hopefully make our own keen eyes ready to recognise when some of us behold details from other areas of research that are relevant - and also increases our own appreciation for the decks and for Tarot.
le pendu
Shalott,
I'm sorry this thread has been frustrating for you, but it has been fascinating to read!
I'm so glad you're adding the Noblet onto your wishlist. Once you get the Dodal in your hands, you'll realise what a wonderful investment you've made, and want the Noblet. (I ended up eventually ordering the uncut sheets of both decks as well and have them framed in my house, everytime I walk by them I'm awed by the beauty)
I compare the cards all time, in fact, I rarely have just one of the decks in front of me. Two other decks that I often use in comparison that haven't been mentioned in this post (not considered standard TdM decks) but I find absolutely integral to study are:
The Tarot of Paris (early to mid 1600s)
http://www.spiritone.com/~filipas/Masquerade/Reviews/paris.html
http://l-pollett.tripod.com/cards59.htm
The Tarot of Jacques Viéville (mid 1600s)
http://l-pollett.tripod.com/cards61.htm
Putting these two decks with the Noblet (1650) is a wonderful way to see what was going on 50 or so years before the Dodal.
I also have a copy of The Tarot de Nostradamus, which is unfortunately a bastardized version of the Jean Payen Tarot (around 1760), but my understanding is that the images have not been tampered with.. so it is very usefull for study as well.
http://www.tarotpassages.com/nostra.htm
Here's what I do, (often). I get out Stuart Kaplan's Encyclopedia of Tarot, volumes 1 and 2. Then I get out the Cary-Yale and Sforza Visconti decks. Then the Flornoy Noblet, Tarot of Paris, Vieville, Dusserre Dodal, Flornoy Dodal, Nostradamus, Heron Conver, Hadar, and Jodo-Camoin.... and pick a card to pull from each deck. I lay them out in the order above. I look for similarities and differences, if something catches my eye, I open the encyclopedia and start searching to see if I can find another occurance of it. Often I'll grab my iBook and start searching the web as well to see if I can find any non-tarot references to something.
By doing this, sometimes I see patterns. For instance, on The Fool.. most of the cards have bells around the waist, but on the Dodal, Noblet and Payen the collar has no bells while Conver changed the curved collar to pointed and added bells. Both Hader and Jodo-Camoin also have the bells. To *my* mind, the bells don't belong there, they are a later enhancement.
Then I look at the stockings and the dog on The Fool. I can't help but think that Noblet got it right. If there is an Ur tarot, I think we would see a bare-assed fool being attacked by a dog. Noblet makes this perfectly, *uncomfortably* clear. But even on the Noblet, the leggings are still miscolored to my mind. Hadar actually has it closer to what I imagine they should look like, but he left out the exposed privates, which I consider crucial. And this brings to mind the Fool card from the Italian "Este" deck from the late 1400s, which seems to have an "exposed" fool being playfully teased by children.
Now of course it's possible that Noblet was a wicked man and added in the nakedness, but I tend to consider the nakedness and teasing "essential" to the card... so that means that, for me, Dodal, Payen, and Conver got it wrong... at least in that aspect.
I think a good example of my type of comparative thinking is apparent in the article I wrote the the Association for Tarot Studies newsletter on the Cary Sheet last month, especially when I was discussing the Wheel of Fortune, you can read it here:
http://association.tarotstudies.org/news24.html
I find my greatest enjoyment with the cards comes from doing the types of comparisons you mentioned in the first post. I suspect that until some definative answer (if ever one should arise) about what exactly constitutes the Ur Tarot, we are all left to study and form our own opinons about what that deck might have/should look like. Personally, I take a broader view than the TdM decks, or certainly any one deck, and include other historical decks as clues leading back to the birth of tarot.
Here are the Noblet and Este fools:
robert
I'm sorry this thread has been frustrating for you, but it has been fascinating to read!
I'm so glad you're adding the Noblet onto your wishlist. Once you get the Dodal in your hands, you'll realise what a wonderful investment you've made, and want the Noblet. (I ended up eventually ordering the uncut sheets of both decks as well and have them framed in my house, everytime I walk by them I'm awed by the beauty)
I compare the cards all time, in fact, I rarely have just one of the decks in front of me. Two other decks that I often use in comparison that haven't been mentioned in this post (not considered standard TdM decks) but I find absolutely integral to study are:
The Tarot of Paris (early to mid 1600s)
http://www.spiritone.com/~filipas/Masquerade/Reviews/paris.html
http://l-pollett.tripod.com/cards59.htm
The Tarot of Jacques Viéville (mid 1600s)
http://l-pollett.tripod.com/cards61.htm
Putting these two decks with the Noblet (1650) is a wonderful way to see what was going on 50 or so years before the Dodal.
I also have a copy of The Tarot de Nostradamus, which is unfortunately a bastardized version of the Jean Payen Tarot (around 1760), but my understanding is that the images have not been tampered with.. so it is very usefull for study as well.
http://www.tarotpassages.com/nostra.htm
Here's what I do, (often). I get out Stuart Kaplan's Encyclopedia of Tarot, volumes 1 and 2. Then I get out the Cary-Yale and Sforza Visconti decks. Then the Flornoy Noblet, Tarot of Paris, Vieville, Dusserre Dodal, Flornoy Dodal, Nostradamus, Heron Conver, Hadar, and Jodo-Camoin.... and pick a card to pull from each deck. I lay them out in the order above. I look for similarities and differences, if something catches my eye, I open the encyclopedia and start searching to see if I can find another occurance of it. Often I'll grab my iBook and start searching the web as well to see if I can find any non-tarot references to something.
By doing this, sometimes I see patterns. For instance, on The Fool.. most of the cards have bells around the waist, but on the Dodal, Noblet and Payen the collar has no bells while Conver changed the curved collar to pointed and added bells. Both Hader and Jodo-Camoin also have the bells. To *my* mind, the bells don't belong there, they are a later enhancement.
Then I look at the stockings and the dog on The Fool. I can't help but think that Noblet got it right. If there is an Ur tarot, I think we would see a bare-assed fool being attacked by a dog. Noblet makes this perfectly, *uncomfortably* clear. But even on the Noblet, the leggings are still miscolored to my mind. Hadar actually has it closer to what I imagine they should look like, but he left out the exposed privates, which I consider crucial. And this brings to mind the Fool card from the Italian "Este" deck from the late 1400s, which seems to have an "exposed" fool being playfully teased by children.
Now of course it's possible that Noblet was a wicked man and added in the nakedness, but I tend to consider the nakedness and teasing "essential" to the card... so that means that, for me, Dodal, Payen, and Conver got it wrong... at least in that aspect.
I think a good example of my type of comparative thinking is apparent in the article I wrote the the Association for Tarot Studies newsletter on the Cary Sheet last month, especially when I was discussing the Wheel of Fortune, you can read it here:
http://association.tarotstudies.org/news24.html
I find my greatest enjoyment with the cards comes from doing the types of comparisons you mentioned in the first post. I suspect that until some definative answer (if ever one should arise) about what exactly constitutes the Ur Tarot, we are all left to study and form our own opinons about what that deck might have/should look like. Personally, I take a broader view than the TdM decks, or certainly any one deck, and include other historical decks as clues leading back to the birth of tarot.
Here are the Noblet and Este fools:
robert
Attachments
Fulgour
Chechmat ~ Gunnysack ?
The Marseille Fool often appears as though he had his
tunic on faced around to the back, maybe his trousers
are so as well? And if you've ever tried to duplicate
his stance, it's quite difficult to keep balance standing
thus ~ could it be that he's walking backwards too?
And what about that hat!
It seems to feed his sack (sack=mat).
The Marseille Fool often appears as though he had his
tunic on faced around to the back, maybe his trousers
are so as well? And if you've ever tried to duplicate
his stance, it's quite difficult to keep balance standing
thus ~ could it be that he's walking backwards too?
And what about that hat!
It seems to feed his sack (sack=mat).
