Determining what makes a TdM (Tarot de Marseille) a TdM

[le pendu]

In a recent thread on the "Tarot Classic"
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=68828

trismegistus asked:

this is a very interesting thread.
I guess I have only one "real" Marseille? a conver pub. Heron?
I also have the J. Vieville by Heron but that's considered a variant? so not a true Marseilles? is this correct?
What about the Italian decks, they are not "true" Marseilles?
After reading some of the threads here regarding the Marseilles, I'm still not sure what defines a true Marseilles according to the purists.

Here is my attempt to answer that, although I think many other members can add significantly to this:

Well.. from my personal perspective, it's all a matter of degrees.

* It would have to have the basic Tarot structure... 78 cards divided into 22 trumps, 16 courts and 40 pips.

* The Suits would have to be Coins, Swords, Batons and Cups.

* The Pips would not be "scenic", yet illustrated with the suit symbols and other decorations.

Okay.. so far we have most tarot decks before the Waite-Smith, Crowley and clones.

*Subject
Next would be the "subject" depicted on the Trumps, all 22 should match the "traditional" TdM iconography. This is where a difference between the TdM and the Jacques Vieville shows up. The Tower on the TdM shows a Tower with two falling figures. The Tower on the Vieville shows a shephard and flock. The Moon on the TdM shows a pool, crawfish, dogs and towers. The Moon on the Vieville shows a woman with spindle. These differences, for most, would disqualify the Jacques Vieville from being considered a TdM, even though many other cards show striking similarities to the TdM. Same thing for the Tarot of Besançon, where the subjects for the Popess and Pope have been changed to Junon and Jupiter, and the Belgian Tarot where they were changed to the Spanish Captain and Bacchus.

Now things start getting very tricky, and a level of personal consideration decides what is and isn't a TdM.

*Depiction of the subject
Now we look at how the subject is depicted, and how closely it matches "traditional" TdM iconography.
In the case of the Classic, the depiction of the Hanged Man is different than the TdM iconography of hanging from one foot, and he is turned to the side. This also shows up in the "Swiss Tarot of Marseilles" published by Il Meneghello, and even on a very old deck.. the Catelin Geofroy deck made in Lyon in 1557.
Here's an image of the Swiss and the Geofroy:

Does this difference to the traditional TdM depiction of the Hanged Man disqualify the Classic as a TdM? "Purists" would probably say yes, others might disagree. Does the Hanged Man on a "true" TdM deck need to be shown looking directly forward with one foot tied and the other bent? How you answer this question will decide whether the deck is a TdM or not.

There is also the difference in the Classic of the way the Sword pip cards are depicted.. having hilts. This is also a difference that may or may not "disqualify" it.

This same issue will crop up with many of the Italian decks. How closely do they match the iconography of the TdM? Have they changed the shape of the Chariot too much? What about the shape of the hat of the Magician, or the things he has on his table? Or the shape (or direction) of the Wheel on the Wheel of Fortune?

* Details
This is taking things to their most extreme limits... but arguements still occur over this sometimes. Assuming that all of the above "requirements" have been met.. there are still differences in the details.

One example of this is the difference between what has been called TdM I and TdM II. There are noticable details between TdM decks like the Noblet/Payen/Dodal and decks like the Conver/Burdel/"most other TdM decks created after 1700".

TdM I decks have the Moon full face, looking directly at the viewer. TdM II decks show the Moon in profile. TdM I decks show the figure on the World with a cape, TdM II cards show the figure with a scarf. There are many other differences as well. Historically, it seems that the TdM I "pattern" is older, and traces of it can be found in other early decks. TdM II decks seem to have been established in the early 1700's. Many decks after 1700 seem to have combined TdM I and TdM II imagery.

But even here there are some that would say that the TdM I is not "really" a TdM, that "THE" TdM is really the iconography shown in the TdM II pattern.

Others may say that the TdM I is the "True" TdM, and that the TdM II is a "later version".

Some.. may even go so far as to say that a TdM is only a TdM when it is a "Tarot of Marseille".. a deck that was printed in Marseille France.

---

I hope that others add to this discussion with their thoughts.. but this is how I personally see the labeling and distinctions.

If anything, my personal journey has taught me to love ALL of these decks. I don't believe that any existing deck clearly represents the "original" design of the the TdM, but instead believe that all of these decks offer bits and pieces that together can help us gain a limited view of what that original deck might have looked like.

best,
robert

 

[Rosanne]

That was very interesting Robert. Can you list the Decks that YOU consider are TdM1 and TdM2. What decks do you think are true TdMs? That is what I think I would like to know. I have the Classic and Jmd says it is a cousin to TdM, I have a Lo Scarabeo Tarots of Marseille (Claude Burdel) and I have Major Tom's, a Fournier. a Conver (my favourite) a Hadar, a Grimaud etc etc and I am never sure. Many thanks! ~Rosanne

 

[Rosanne]

Scratch 2nd half of Question Le Pendu- it has been answered in another Thread- but I would love you to list Tdm1 and Tdm2. ~Rosanne

 

[jmd]

Where I entirely agree with le pendu (and we have discussed this in some ways before) is that the nomenclature is not indeed totally clear.

If one looks at the variety of early woodcut decks, then we may appreciate each of them and call them (when known) by their 'authors'. Hence the Vieville, the Noblet, the Dodal, Payen, Conver, the anonymous Paris deck, etc..

In each of these cases, those of us that enjoy looking at early exemplars will find in each details that adds to the overall picture and also provides for insights into what earlier models since lost may have included, or tried to represent.

The problem comes when a generic family name or names is used.

With that, what is going to be considered Marseille-type (or Marseille-style) and what is not (no matter if in some aspects similar).

Again, where I agree with le pendu is that we may each draw the line at different fissures. Talking of fissures, however, also provides for a model to help to determine family membership - I'll get back to that in a little while.

Some prefer to use classification models that are more (inversely) reflective of the biological realm (whether plant or animal). The advantage of that is that one may see in early models greater variety of the same 'type' - in the similar (but with regards to time, inversed) one sees a greater variety of dogs or roses within that same broad classification in more recent than in earlier times.

I suppose, for myself, the journey travelled thus far saw in the variety of 19th and 20th century decks (apart from the gaming double-headed variety) basically designs that on the whole were simply called 'tarot' and that took as an un-acknowledged point of departure the TdMII variety. The extant of deviation in part dependent on whether other deviants were also used.

In addition to this, going backwards in history, what is evident is that there are indeed variants, and that, further, there is some connection between these decks. Whether or not we know or can surmise the connection varies from deck to deck.

In another thread (I think in Talking Tarot), I introduced the image of a Tree as a model for the development of tarot, with the tree's roots reaching into the rich soil of European tradition, itself connected to other soils.

The major roots themselves early deck models from which tarot as tarot later emerges. As part of the major roots I would here include such decks as the Visconti-types. The major branches in the tree's growth reflect varieties found in tarot's later development.

At its core, however, is what I would personally characterise as the Marseille-type. There are differences, of course, between the various parts of the trunk. There are also, I would suggest, decks that are more like stumps reaching out off the central trunk, but very close indeed - and to these we can usually give their own generic names.

For example, the Besancon is 'clearly' distinguishable, even if it also incorporates elements that appear to have been 'lost' in examplars closer to the trunk (eg: the hilts on the curved swords). Other decks depict, as another example, straight, rather than curved, swords (as is the portuguese types).

What is or is not going to be called a Marseille?

This is, in some ways, as difficult for some decks as answering whether the small protrusion from the main trunk is part of the trunk, or distinct.

With the Schaffhouse, I would suggest that the double-feeted hanged man, as one of a number of distinguishing features of the deck (there are many others) can be seen as a deck that is a heavy growth to the side of the tree, that however never deviates too far from the trunk. A separate 'growth' nonetheless, and hence, I would suggest, something that can have its own distinguishing characteristic name: Schaffhouse, rather than Marseille.

With regards to the Payen/Dodal/TdMI and the Conver/TdMII, they are both, I would suggest, on the trunk itself.

The tree analogy provides for a useful model as it also allows for chronology to be taken into consideration: a tree is wider and allows for more variety further down on the trunk than further up that same trunk.

Where it fails as an analogy, I would suggest, is in part what would happen if (or when) a very early model that we would happily call 'Marseille-type' gets re-created with its distinct differences to the manner in which the model has with time changed. For example, if the hilts were suddenly re-included in an otherwise identical deck to the J-P. Payen.

My early usage of the concept of an 'Ür-tarot' was in part to avoid this problem - though I used the term in its Goethean way, not in its modern German sense of 'early model from which others are derived'. The ür-tarot, in that sense, is the tarot deck that does not exist but is like a plumb-line within the vertical centre of the tree I mention as model.

I perhaps have deviated from the intent of the thread... but it is a difficult concept to begin to address.

 

[Papageno]

thank you to the historians-scholars. I think I have a better understanding of this ongoing debate.
it would appear that there is a search for the Holy Grail of Marseilles in a manner of speaking. The suggestion of a hierarchial tree sounds beneficial but that leads me to ask: if you are able to construct a hierarchial graph of the Marseilles family of tarot, then why would this question not be put to rest by virtue of chronology? or is the timeline itself also in question?

 

[OnePotato]

I have a few questions about this...

I'm left wondering about the purpose of defining the TdM...

Is it a search for a boundary that was in place historically? If so, what purpose might it have served? How important was it?

Or is it an attempt to place a modern boundary on the design variations? If so, is it a value judgement? A chronology issue? What else...?

Can a true TdM be produced today? Is it (simply) a matter of getting the graphic images exactly correct? Or does the bulk of identity lie in the particular meanings behind the images? (In which case the graphic specifics might vary a bit, the way they do in the vintage examples, and yet still -mean- the same thing.)

I ask all this from a most philosophical point of view. I'm NOT questioning the validity of defining TdM.

 

[le pendu]

Scratch 2nd half of Question Le Pendu- it has been answered in another Thread- but I would love you to list Tdm1 and Tdm2. ~Rosanne

Hi Rosanne.

I should be clear that the Terms TdM I and TdM II are relatively new to me. I *believe* I am using them properly, and that I can determine the differences. I've mentioned elsewhere that I came upon the terms after I had already noted the differences that I was seeing in decks like the Noblet/Dodal/Payen and decks like the Conver. For a while I was using terms like "Dodal-style" and "Conver-style". Then I was alerted that Thierry Depaulis had noted these (or some of these) differences 20 years ago! See this thread:
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=61489

Here is a quote of Ross' quote of Mr. Depaulis

Far from being tiresome, the multitude of tarots "de Marseille" which follow permits the distinguishing of two groups. The first is characterized by a Cupid without hair, going towards the left, eyes blindfolded (Atout no. VI, l'Amoureux); a Devil whose stomach has a human face on card no. XV; the Moon (no. XVIII) shows a face; on the World no. XXI, a feminine figure dressed in a loincloth and cape. [and the two figures on the Sun are an adult male and female, barely wearing a sort of loincloth, while in Type II they are two infants of indeterminable sex. Finally, the Fool is named LE FOL, while in Type II, he is named LE MAT.]

The second type sees Cupid going to the right; he no longer has blindfolded eyes and his hair is curly. The Diable has a smooth belly, la Lune is in profile and the feminine figure is only clothed with a scarf and her left leg is bent.

The first type has some chance of being older: the solitary card of the World from the Castello Sforzesco, which is dated to the 16th century, shows the same feminine figure; the tarots of Jean Noblet (c. 1650 [c. 1660]), Jean-Pierre Payen (1713), Jean Dodal (c. 1715 [c. 1705]), Jean Payen (1743) are clear examples of this type. More unexpectedly, those of Cosmo Antonio Toso (Genoa, c. 1770?) and even Gummpenberg (Milan, end of the 18th century, of 'Milanese' type then current [cf. also Mann 1990, no. 205] are witness to the permanence of the model.

Finally, it becomes evident that the variant 'de Besançon', nearly to the smallest detail, comes from this Type I: the same Amoureux, the same Lune and the same Monde; on the other hand the Diable appears with a hairy body (Benoist and Carey at Strasbourg, Jerger and his successors at Besançon). It is interesting to compare the two tarots of François Heri, from Soleure, one undated (first half of 18th century), of Type I, but with Junon and Jupiter (it is certainly the first of the genre), the other, dated 1718, of Type II!

To this second Type belong the tarots of François Chosson (1672? [1762?]), Pierre Madenié (Dijon, 1709: finally recovered in its entirety), a number of Swiss tarots and classic tarots de Marseille (Conver, Bourlion, Tourcaty, etc.). Of course, there are those little pests who have mixed the two and with whom one finds a Lovers of Type II and a Devil of Type I... [see also D. Hoffmann, in Tarot, Tarock, Tarocchi, Leinfelden-Echterdingen, 1988, p. 11-12: 'Die Familie des Marseiller Tarock']

[Later addition:

TdM Type I is represented earlier than Type II; it is found at Lyon, Grenoble, Avignon; it disappeared after 1750, not before having engendered the 'Lombard' and 'Besançon' tarots. Some variants of the TdM Type II exist: a mixed form, combining Type I and Type II (M-I/II), a Type II with the Fool named LE FOL (M-IIa) and a Type II 'Genoan' with the Pendu in profile.

Type II is only known after 1700; it is found at Dijon, Besançon, in Switzerland, then at Marseille in the second half of the 18th century; it survived alone, or nearly, after 1800. According to D. Hoffmann, the Piedmontese Tarot (cf. for example that by Lando) comes from the TdM Type II (Hoffmann/Dietrich 1988, p. 12). The TdM Type II seems to be a "calmed", "humanised" version of TdM Type I: the Devil is less frightening, the feminine figure of the World is more feminine, that is, more "sexy" in regards to her hips and breasts (whereas the the corresponding figure in Type I is more "austere", less feminine). Briefly, the TdM Type II appears to me to be a "modernisation" of TdM Type I. Is it the work of Lyonnais cardmaker? of a Dijonnais? And how to explain its success in Marseille?]

And I would also agree with Ross' list:

Type I -

Noblet
J-P Payen
Dodal
J Payen
(and late 18th and 19th century Genoese and Milanese tarots)

Type II -

Chosson
Madenié
Conver
(some Swiss tarots and other tarots de Marseille)

--

As to which I consider "True".. at this point.. both... with an edge going to the TdM I.

 

[le pendu]

thank you to the historians-scholars. I think I have a better understanding of this ongoing debate.
it would appear that there is a search for the Holy Grail of Marseilles in a manner of speaking. The suggestion of a hierarchial tree sounds beneficial but that leads me to ask: if you are able to construct a hierarchial graph of the Marseilles family of tarot, then why would this question not be put to rest by virtue of chronology? or is the timeline itself also in question?

Hi trismegistus,

I guess it is true that I am personally on a search for the Holy Grail of Marseilles. For me it is a mystery, and I love historical mysteries, especially if they involve an element of spirtuality. For all I know, the Noblet or the Conver might be the holy grail... sitting right there all this time. But my exploration has led me to believe that "something" existed before the decks we still have in existence... I see traces of it by comparing the existing decks, and looking at early cards.. (from other traditions like the Bologna), or those found in Sforza Castle, or the Cary-Sheet. It makes me wonder if an "ancestor" could be reconstructed, and if so, what choices would I make on the iconography? The fact is that we are talking about a hypothetical deck. It could be that either the Noblet or the Dodal or the Conver or various others IS the original.. but I personally doubt it

I want to take a second to clarify that I'm not a historian or a scholar, just a tarot history enthusist! There are members of this forum who have truly earned the title, but I'm flattered if you were including me in your post.

Regarding the rest of your post, I think jmd and others would be better suited to answer.

 

[le pendu]

I have a few questions about this...

I'm left wondering about the purpose of defining the TdM...

Is it a search for a boundary that was in place historically? If so, what purpose might it have served? How important was it?

Or is it an attempt to place a modern boundary on the design variations? If so, is it a value judgement? A chronology issue? What else...?

Can a true TdM be produced today? Is it (simply) a matter of getting the graphic images exactly correct? Or does the bulk of identity lie in the particular meanings behind the images? (In which case the graphic specifics might vary a bit, the way they do in the vintage examples, and yet still -mean- the same thing.)

I ask all this from a most philosophical point of view. I'm NOT questioning the validity of defining TdM.

Hi OnePotato,
Great questions! I'm not sure I can answer any of them clearly so hope that others will also add their opinions.

For me.. part of this conversation started when I first started studying the TdM a couple of years ago. There was a lot of talk at the time about what a "true" TdM was, and some conversation about whether decks like the Noblet and the Dodal could be considered "true" TdM decks. Some of this was based on the iconographic differences between the decks. This lead me to start collecting as many samples as I could and simply sit and compare and contrast the decks to see if I could see any "threads" running through them. I had hoped to be able to find the "true", or at least the "truest" TdM.

This conversation also comes up when discussing some of the modern "recreations/restorations" like the Hadar, Camoin-Jodorowsky, Rodes-Sanchez, Major Tom, and Flornoy. Why did these artists choose the details that they did? And do their choices (and to some.. "alterations") disqualify their decks from being considered "true" TdMs?

Part of the difficulty is determining.. what *is* getting the images "exactly correct". What is correct? Should the Moon be full face or profile? Should the figure on the World wear a Cape or a Scarf? Does choosing one or the other make the deck more or less a TdM? Are either okay?

Sorry if this didn't help answer your question.. or only confused it more. Hopefully others will join in.

best,
robert

 

[jmd]

These are some great and frustrating questions. In some ways, we can simply say that there are a variety of early decks that show degrees of kinship or influence, and drop the appelation 'Marseille' altogether.

Yet the term does help to quickly identify a 'type' of deck. It is this identification that will vary according to whom we are talking to.

As an example (perhaps too often used), types of snow are not needed to be differentiated if I say it has snowed locally. Similarly, I actually describe my Schaffhouse as 'like the Marseille' if talking to someone who knows a little about tarot and has perhaps a few decks. To others who share similar interests in the broader woodblock-type decks, to call it a 'Marseille' is no more informative than saying 'Tarot' or 'Cards': further differentiation is required.

In some ways, then, the "purpose of defining the TdM" is in part the same as seeking to define or characterise any item of interest: to be able to clearly identify what it is we are talking about (hence, since philosophical considerations have also been raised, my invoking of Kripke's concept of rigid designators in a recent earlier thread on a similar topic).

The other part has a more 'core' element.

The alternative is the following, that seems to me broadly accepted by others:

Here, again to take from the philosophical corpus, one could go the way of Wittgenstein and make a comparison between tarot and 'games': neither has a core that can be defined in such a way that its characteristics are both necessary and exhaustive. In other words, there is a large class of objects (tarot decks) that have related characteristics that cannot be listed in such a way that the concept of its family (Marseille) can be precisely captured.​

The core element 'denies' this:

For myself at any rate, there is some unstated centrality that is elusive - elusive precisely because as soon as it manifest, its form has to lean either one way or another, but its 'distance' from this limit still in some ways conceptually or qualitatively 'measured'. Seeking some characterisation or clarity about what this 'core' or centrality has or is brings to light not so much 'errors' in various models, but rather the manner in which deviations bring to light movement.​

For this, a chronological chart is simply not sufficient, unfortunately, and this, I would suggest, for two reasons:

The first is that very early models are simply in part or in whole lacking. The Sforza Castle card(s) are fantastic early examplars, but we simply do not know what deck (nor how many cards) they formed part. Also, at times it seems that later examplars are drawing on an earlier source than another deck that is chronologically earlier (example, the later Bologna decks possibly drawing on an earlier sword model than extent in 'standard' TdM);

The second is that an earlier deck, though of course in so many ways importantly close to the 'core', will nonetheless perhaps reflect items that do NOT form part of a Marseille 'core' (for example, missing animals or missing towers on the Moon card) - something that time itself may see decks move towards (hence also the broader trunk near the bottom than further in time).​

For many, the question may not be important at all, and for some, the characteristics are a far broader inter-relationship of detail, few of which essential in themselves, and collectively divergent.

I'm not sure if I have simply added to possible confusion, or simply made manifest my own confusing thinking...