Does the Tarot de Marseille comes from Occitania?

[Ross G Caldwell]

I thought the first mention in French of the tarot ("tarau") was 1534 from Rabelais. (c.f. Rabelais and Tarot). 1505? What happened in 1505?

For a long time, it was believed that Rabelais' mention was the earliest. Thus I was shocked the first time I read an article from 1955, which mentioned "taraux" in 1507!

In 1955, H. Chobaut published a study of Avignon cardmakers, and noted the phrase "cards commonly called taraux" in a contract from 1507. However, he did not provide a transcript of the full document, or its catalogue number in the archives.

Chobaut's work went unnoticed by most tarot historians, and he is not mentioned by Dummett in 1980, Depaulis in 1984, Berti and Vitali in 1987 etc. However, at some point Thierry Depaulis re-read it and decided to go look for the original to confirm it. Dummett noted in 1993 (Il Mondo e l'Angelo) that Depaulis had at that point been unsuccessful in his search.

Sometime later, it appears that an archivist in Avignon in touch with Thierry did find the document referred to by Chobaut - however, Chobaut had misdated it: it was actually from 1505!

Thierry put this information in an article which was published in 2004 in The Playing Card. He also believes that the term "taraux" is French (not Occitan), and probably comes from Lyon, and that "tarocchi" is an Italianization of the French word. I don't know why he thinks it is a French and not Occitan word, except perhaps because he is certain that the "x" was silent, as it would be in modern French.

I'm not so sure; and in any case, the original document was in Latin, so I would expect a "phonetic" transcription of the word. Thus I believe the original pronunciation of the word was something like "tar-oaks". This would explain also how the Italian word came about.

Incidentally, the Italian researcher Adriano Franceschini discovered the earliest mention of "tarocchi" in Ferrara records also from 1505! (he discovered this probably over a decade ago, but few knew about it). The Avignon record is from December, the Ferrara (there are two) are from August. Thus, by 1505 the two different forms of this word were already in circulation.

 

[le pendu]

Thanks to all for the excellent information!

Venicebard said:
"Also, I hardly see what possible designs WERE being manufactured in that region around 1500 if NOT the Marseilles."

This raises a few questions for me that may have already been answered...

Am I correct in saying that the Jean Noblet (1650) is the first example of TdM pattern cards that we have in existence?

Is it possible that "taraux cards" were not TdM until some uncertain time between 1450 and 1650?

Is it possible that decks like the Geofroy Caitlin, the "Tarot of Paris", and the Jacques Vieville were all considered "taraux cards", but we have no certainty when the pattern called the TdM was actually formed?

thanks,
robert

 

[Ross G Caldwell]

Am I correct in saying that the Jean Noblet (1650) is the first example of TdM pattern cards that we have in existence?

Hard to say.

The Cary Sheet, of uncertain date and provenance, shows trumps with many of the same features as a typical TdM, with significant differences as well. For reasons he never explains (in the sources I have), Dummett considers the Cary Sheet to come from Milan around the year 1500, and everybody else who mentions it acquiesces in that opinion.

There is also a two of Deniers from Milan dated 1499, illustrated in Kaplan II, p. 8. This looks exactly like a typical tarot two of Deniers. But no contemporay trump cards for this deck have come to light, although some TdM-like trumps and other cards clearly of TdM-like tarot packs, again of uncertain date, were found during renovations at the Castello Sforzesco. These are all well illustrated in Kaplan II, pp. 289-297. Dummett considers them all late-15th through the 16th century, hence earlier than Noblet.

Finally, the TdM *order*, if not the designs, is present in Catelin Geoffroy's pack of 1557 (Lyon).

Is it possible that "taraux cards" were not TdM until some uncertain time between 1450 and 1650?

I would say definitely yes. The TdM order is only attested in France, never in Italy or Savoy (in the dates you quote). But most of the designs are attested in Italy by 1600, if you accept Dummett's opinion on the date. The only reason all of the TdM designs aren't attested is because no complete pack has been found.

The oldest packs known are certainly not TdMs, and even the earliest printed packs known aren't TdMs. Thus, anyone who argues that the TdM-style trumps existed as early as 1450 (or earlier) must rely on the argument that all such packs have been at least partially lost. It is hard to assess the merit of the argument from silence in this case, since it is true that most packs of cards have indeed been lost.

Is it possible that decks like the Geofroy Caitlin, the "Tarot of Paris", and the Jacques Vieville were all considered "taraux cards", but we have no certainty when the pattern called the TdM was actually formed?

I personally think so. I think the TdM trumps were designed in either Lyon or Avignon at the earliest around 1500. But 1600 is not out of the question. The differences among the packs that do survive from the 16th century point to several different kinds of taraux cards, with varying degrees of similarity to the TdM trumps, but no complete exact match.

 

[venicebard]

Ross certainly puts what I take as the existing physical evidence well and succinctly (my main source was Kaplan vol. 2 till I met you guys). It is my leap of faith that the Marseilles designs were far older than surviving decks, old decks having long been discarded as ‘standard’, based on omission of details in other versions which I have concluded necessary to the intended symbolic meanings, which I (in my hubris) think I have ascertained (in most or all instances of trumps, certainly).

But certain of the earlier surviving examples are at least close to the original symbolic language, which language can only (pretty much) have come from Occitania because it involved confluence of British and Judaic ‘mystical’ traditions (concerning the alphabet and the ten hidden forms preceding it, so to speak). The most important of these early extant examples (just to clarify my Occitan-origin theory) are the form of XXI LeMonde that has a hamlet seen through a porthole surmounted by an angel, and LeBateleur as the bridgebuilder Hiram Abiff on the Carrie sheet, where his table is an arched bridge (oblique reference also to the Royal Arch). This latter emphasizes the Masonic dimension of the symbolism, whereas the Marseilles design emphasizes the alphabetical (being alef) in that the missing fourth leg of his table represents the missing fourth ogham group (the vowels) in ogam consaine (vowel-less ogham), ogham’s more ancient form (not limited to Kelts).

On the other hand, lack of symmetry in LeDiable and absence of dogs on LaLune speak to the Carry sheet itself being an offshoot of a more intact line of card-making tradition. And if that main-line tradition (the ‘Marseilles’) was born in the region of Milan, it would have to have been of an Occitan-exile community there I dare say, and not Milanese heretics. For while Arthurian lore made it to that region, the place British lore met Judaic lore was surely the Languedoc, since Qabbalah (the symbol-language in its strictly Judaic form) originated there. I don’t see how it can be otherwise, but then I don’t know everything, which is why I throw this out for possible correction, or interest. Feast, o hounds of hell... (my tongue is in my cheek)