jmd
In the thread in Tarot Decks titled 'Lo Scarabeo decks', RiccardoLS (from Lo Scarabeo) commented upon a remark I made which questioned the Marseille's ancestry to the Noblet thus:
For me, this is certainly a plausible simplified line of thought based on available evidence - and certainly the Encyclopedias corroborate much of this. I wonder, however, if again the type of conclusion made transcends the evidence at hand. That the Vieville has some similar elements to some early Italian designs could be because of the chain mentioned - or not.
With the 1672 Chosson, is it (again) from there that Marseille standardisation occurs, or did he produce from an earlier tradition of which earlier publications remain lost or unknown.
I suppose that on the one hand, one may draw plausible conclusions from the extant evidence, on the other, to make these as definitive statements (which I am not claiming that, unlike others, RiccardoLS is doing) goes beyond the evidence.
All we seem to be able to say with certainty is that some decks, of which we have records, go back to various dates from various specific locations. Whether the chain of development is as the remnant cards indicates, or whether a reverse of this order was actually the case, remains historically unknown at this stage.
Looking forward to various varied variagated and volatile views.
As such an important summary, I thought it would be worthwhile posting separately as an item of discussion.Early Marseilles deck:
I'm not a Tarot historian, so I may only quote sources, and I'm not sure If I'm adding anything to what you already know.
The development of Tarot had been Italy ---> Paris ---> Marseille.
The Paris Tarot decks were considered the missing link between the Italian tradition and the well documented Marseille one. Of those deck we have only three surviving, of what should have been tens or hundreads. Of those one is anonymous, and the other two were the "Noblet" and the "Vieville". The Vieville presents many elements directly linked to the Italian Tarot. It seem to have descendants as a deck with a similar iconography was created in Rouen between 1723 and 1748.
The Noblet on the other side was almost "marseille" like. The final adjustement to the marseille template arrived with the deck by Francois Chosson in 1672. Actually I don't have any idea of what were the differences between the "Noblet" and the "Chosson".
Maybe, if you could explain the question better I could try to find something (or ask someone, because I'm no expert at all).
For me, this is certainly a plausible simplified line of thought based on available evidence - and certainly the Encyclopedias corroborate much of this. I wonder, however, if again the type of conclusion made transcends the evidence at hand. That the Vieville has some similar elements to some early Italian designs could be because of the chain mentioned - or not.
With the 1672 Chosson, is it (again) from there that Marseille standardisation occurs, or did he produce from an earlier tradition of which earlier publications remain lost or unknown.
I suppose that on the one hand, one may draw plausible conclusions from the extant evidence, on the other, to make these as definitive statements (which I am not claiming that, unlike others, RiccardoLS is doing) goes beyond the evidence.
All we seem to be able to say with certainty is that some decks, of which we have records, go back to various dates from various specific locations. Whether the chain of development is as the remnant cards indicates, or whether a reverse of this order was actually the case, remains historically unknown at this stage.
Looking forward to various varied variagated and volatile views.