Camoin Marseilles -- the "true" Tarot, or just squinting at squiggly lines?

Hi LePendu! Yeah... loved it!

Hi Greg, no problem, everyone have his own sensitivity. Just know that my purpose is not to attack anyone, even if the personalities of some tarot makers who claim to have produce the "only real and authentic tarot" are a little bit "too much" in my sense. I feel Kris Hadar's arguments are not fonded and really flimsy. It's not a so called stairway in some Queen minor arcana who is sufficient and permit to claim that "my Tarot is the real one". It's true Camoin didn't reveal his sources for some time, and that he got his own style of presenting the things, thinking he and Jodo are "the only masters of tarot for the whole world" (sic.), but now he does explain some things and regarding many details restored, his arguments are completely fonded by visual poofs. he presents the old cards with the snakes on the Temperance's dresse and the egg hidden/revealed by the Popess. This is not his invention, no need to be a big "master" inspired by God directly to compare some old decks and find the missig details. And it is usefull for everyone who got a real interest in TdM. I don't speak about the book of Jodo in this purpose (it is what it is, not my subject at all), I just speak about restoration of TdM.

"it's a good deck, although not really an improvement over the Grimaud."

How can u say that? There is much improvement!!! It's really an historical deck. Does the Grimaud shows an egg under the Popess's dress and the Eagle of the Emperor? Snakes around the Temperance's dress? Aren't these details fonded on historical old decks? Weren't some of these really details on the grinds of the Conver, but unfortunately didn't appear because of errors of colouring?

Again, don't mind, my goal is not to criticize, juste exchanging point of vue and respecting yours.

Hi ElTarot, thanks for your posts. Do you know from what old deck is coming this Popess with an egg presented on the Camoin's slideshow?

Again, why does Camoin hide the name of this deck by only saying it's an old deck...? Why don't he simply share these treasures with others? Why trying absolutely to preserve a monopole? Well, I don't ask u to answer these question, but we are all in right to ask ourselves.

Anyway, it's a good advice for all TdM pasionnate people of the world, especially TdM restorers or discoverer of TdM ciffer: it's probably a nice feeling to think "I am the master of tarot for the whole world", "the tarot I produced is the only real one"... but it an illusion... another egg ou ego who must hatch one day for the embryo not being rotten.

"Hi ElTarot, thanks for your posts. Do you know from what old deck is coming this Popess with an egg presented on the Camoin's slideshow?"

Well, I realize this is the Bernardin's one!!! Camoin show probably another edition of it, the colors are a little looking diluated, but it is the same! Thank u !!! This is an info.

In the arcana presented by Camoin on the slide show, we can see this egg was not green but white, juste the green have soaked on the arcana you showed. But this is Suzanne's work and not an invention by Camoin! Thank to this rare woman!

More details

Hello Premdas, if Tourrase not mention the origin of the egg is more just to keep the mystery alive, thereby endorsing the theory of Tarot course lost, which happened in mexico half block from where he lived Jodorowsky, is a clear example of what he calls "The trap sacred" part of his philosophy.

The curious thing about this egg, in the context of Tarot Bernardin (1840) (maybe not so old as to be considered a historical, bah, stupid) is in the 2 cups (II emanation of the glasses) is that this egg hatched, and we can see the hen chicks his sons brought their father the Rooster. (also present this detail, the hen, chicks and rooster on the Fautrier 1762).
This within the context of Bernardin has another meaning, somewhat naive but valid.

BERNARDIN......................FAUTRIER


Very different from Fenix submitted by the 2 angels, a little mystical, do not you think so? (This detail of 2 cups and 4 golds is Tourcaty 1763 and repeated by Arnoux.

I regret to say that the detail of the door of La Maison Diev not belong to a Tarot of Marseilles is one of Besançon Tarot, Tarot of Jerger circa 1800 and repeated in the TDB Renault circa 1820)


JERGER..........................RENAULT

The Jodo-Camoin restoration is not a right in a deck "old" real, is a salad of a variety of details scattered in countless historical decks, but very effective use.

Infinite thanks Jodo Camoi.

Thank u so much for your contribution ElTarot!

This is information, and what you say about the Jodo/Camoin is completely true!

Premdas said:

his arguments are completely fonded by visual poofs

Click to expand...

I guess you meant "spoofs" ?

"it's a good deck, although not really an improvement over the Grimaud."
How can u say that? There is much improvement!!! It's really an historical deck. Does the Grimaud shows an egg under the Popess's dress and the Eagle of the Emperor? Snakes around the Temperance's dress?

Click to expand...

the idea that these modificatins over the Conver might be considered as "improvements" is highly arguable.

Aren't these details fonded on historical old decks? Weren't some of these really details on the grinds of the Conver, but unfortunately didn't appear because of errors of colouring?

Click to expand...

apart from the egg, they may be details taken here and there, but keep in mind that someone doesn't makes an history book by creating a story based on diverse historical facts.

Bertrand

Hi Bertand, well I meant proofs: the Bernardin's Popess is one of them. This Bernardin's deck is a restauration based on the same model of the Conver. The egg under the Eagle of the Emperor was there in the wooden grind of the Conver.

"apart from the egg, they may be details taken here and there, but keep in mind that someone doesn't makes an history book by creating a story based on diverse historical facts."

Yes I agree with you and quote ElTarot in this sense: this "salad of a variety of details scattered in countless historical decks, is of very effective use."

Maybe the Jodo Camoin is not "historical" in the sense it's not the restoration of a Conver or a TdM, but it is in the sense it is the first time a deck shows many original symbolic details missing in the old restorations of TdM, and the first time a deck group together pertinent symbolic details belonging, I agree for some of them (very few in fact), from other sources than TdM. But as I told in another post, I feel the door of LA MAISON DIEV should not be there in what claim to be a TdM.

Bertrand said:

apart from the egg, they may be details taken here and there, but keep in mind that someone doesn't makes an history book by creating a story based on diverse historical facts.

Click to expand...

Totally agree with this. Camoin and Jodorowsky picked and chose various details based on Jodorowsky's own personal mystical conception of the tarot -- there is nothing of historical importance here. If he had explained his choices and was able to give genuine reasons based on historical facts, I might be persuaded. All his arguments are of the "this symbolizes that, and this means that" variety, with no accompanying notes or sources. As an historical document, his book is worthless.

I'm happy people find value in this deck, but it must be called what it is. Its a re-envisioning, not a restoration. It's no more a "true" Marseilles than the Fournier or Major Tom's -- and I'm not saying these decks aren't Mareilles, but they don't claim to be the only player on the block either.

Hi Greg!

"Camoin and Jodorowsky picked and chose various details based on Jodorowsky's own personal mystical conception of the tarot -- there is nothing of historical importance here".

Can tell exactly hat details in this deck are based on Jodorowsky's own personal mystical conception ? Really I'd like to know. Already we know the EGG doesn't enter this catégory, as it was present in some other TdM deck end grind. The door of arcana XVI is coming from TdB as put n evidence by ElTarot. The snakes in a. XIIII were also present in ancient decks of TdM. What else?

"All his arguments are of the "this symbolizes that, and this means that" variety, with no accompanying notes or sources."

Well, at that point you are right; as I told earlier: "... and I am sure even the autors themselves do not really understand their own restauration... and the depth of the missing symbolism they have reintroduced... It's not because they found some details lacking present in some old documents that they know what they mean."


"As an historical document, his book is worthless."

This judgement is a little bit too sharp in my sense. It certainly has historical interest in some way. It already marks our time...

"Its a re-envisioning, not a restoration."

OK with u, now Camoin says it's not a restauration but a "reconstruction of an old philosophical system", and there is something true in this.

"It's no more a "true" Marseilles than the Fournier or Major Tom's -- and I'm not saying these decks aren't Mareilles, but they don't claim to be the only player on the block either."

Exscuse me, but the comparison is out of subject. There is nothing new nor historical in the Fournier's, just a fancy way of colouring that has no esoteric meaning, out of subject. There is really something "historical" and a real structurated esoterism in the Camoin. And that' beyond the "restorater" himself!!!

Premdas said:

Maybe the Jodo Camoin is not "historical" in the sense it's not the restoration of a Conver or a TdM, but it is in the sense it is the first time a deck shows many original symbolic details missing in the old restorations of TdM, and the first time a deck group together pertinent symbolic details belonging, I agree for some of them (very few in fact), from other sources than TdM. But as I told in another post, I feel the door of LA MAISON DIEV should not be there in what claim to be a TdM.

Click to expand...

So what is the value of this deck then?

You're saying it shows "original" symbolic details, but that many of them belong to more recent decks, and that some of are not correct. And yet in an earlier post you say it's an important historical deck. This does not make sense.

The problem with Jodorowsky's "symbols" is that they are highly personal. Most of them are details that most people wouldn't notice, and I honestly don't think the original engravers gave them much thought either. You can say "the egg on the Popess symbolizes this" and "the door on the tower means that", but how do you know? You can't possible know what was originally intended, no matter how many old decks you look at. The fact that Jodorowsky's sources are a smattering of 18th and 19th century printings, which he says in his book can't be trusted. This is one of many examples where he completely contradicts himself, and which gives the impression that he's more than a little mentally unstable.

Jodorowsky is neither a scholar or an historian. He's a mystic. The deck is no more important than any other deck. It's only important to people who like to read with it.

Could call it recreation

If truth is not a restoration, not even respect the Conver, only trace on his line, even on Chosson (supposedly 1672, mmmm) (see the Queen of Cups and motives of waterfowl in your lap) or Flying Gold invention in the King of Deniers (Giussepe Drago 1790).



The word restoration is left with her big and filled his mouth.
It is a historic covered? at least not for now, but as YvesLM says, remains to be seen in many years, that's what history says.
It's still too early right?