Pen wrote:This is fascinating Robert, thanks for these comparisons.
Thanks Pen, I think it is fascinating too, and probably my favourite aspect of studying tarot history is looking at the similarities and differences between decks. I really appreciate your participation and look forward to exploring more cards.
Pen wrote:
I think it's possible that the missing line for the butt cheek on the Dodal simply broke off, but that straight vertical line directly above the animal's paws is very odd. In fact that whole area is a very strange arrangement of lines and colours in which it's impossible to know what was intended.
You're right! It is odd isn't it? You're going to hear me comment on how sloppy the Dodal is, a lot. It's particularly frustrating to me because in some ways (which I'll go into later) I think it might be the closest we can come to decks a generation or two before, now lost, such as shown in the Sforza Castle World card. Yet, it's such a careless copy in many ways, and makes me a bit crazy because interesting details are unclear and lines are often confusing. So what was going on here? I don't have hi-res versions of the Dodal, but I do have Flornoy's restoration of this card, this is how he drew the line:
Is the straight line the original butt cheek and then he redrew it with the more pleasing curve? Frankly, that sounds unlike this cardmaker to me. Very odd. Good eye to catch that!!
Pen wrote:The similarities between the Dodal and the Chosson are so many that one must surely have been copied directly from the other, yet the fabric folds on the Chosson Fool's right leg are far less convincing that those on the Dodal, although the hands are more competently drawn. And is that a fallen bell on the ground or in the stream between the Chosson Fool's feet?
I'm working with the theory that the Chosson (Tarot de Marseille II) is a redrawing of the Tarot de Marseille I, with an attempt to "clean it up". The Tarot de Marseille II seems a much more elegant version to me, and it is difficult to say if that lends weight to it being older or younger than the Tarot de Marseille I. We certainly have samples of both crude and elegant decks that predated the Tarot de Marseille. I'm honestly not sure yet, which is why I continue to pursue these types of explorations, to see if a schematic can develop of the relationships and ancestries. I wondered about the "bell" at the bottom of the Chosson as well. It does seem deliberate, doesn't it? Let's see if it is also on the Conver, this is from the "Bi-centennial" by Camoin (from Rom's site, as are the Chosson images:
http://tarotchoco.quebecblogue.com/ ), and the Chosson beside it to compare:
It's strange, but I think it looks like a small piece of the "bell" line is there in the Conver. What do you think? Based
just on this, it would seem that the bell disappears between the Chosson and the Conver. Very interesting. Another interesting "bell" is one that really shows up in the Conver (if indeed, it is a bell and not something else), on the front of the cap where it crosses the stick. It's very clear in the Chosson and Conver, and I think it is there in the Dodal as well, but not in the Noblet. Again, from the upcoming Flornoy restoration, a detail that shows the circle, but obviously with less clarity.
So, in this case, it's looking like the Conver is clearest, then the Chosson, then the Dodal, although I'm not what it is doing there in the first place? Was it a bell at the end of some part of the Fool's hat?
Pen wrote:Could the blank space above the Chosson Fool be due to a workshop practice? Eg., if the basic blocks for all the cards were cut by an apprentice before being drawn on or having the drawings transferred to them.
That's exactly what I think might be the answer, that the moulds were prepared with room for the titles and numbers prepared and then the images cut inbetween them.
Pen wrote:Historically, I'm not sure that any of the above is in the least helpful, but your observation of the missing/mis-translated? bell on the cap in the Dodal and the Chosson does seem significant. One must surely have been copied directly from the other. It looks to me as though the 'spoon' on the stick is simply a misinterpretation of the crossed cord in the other decks.
It's hard to figure out.
As we go through cards, the relationships change and just when I think I've got a working theory, some detail throws it off. I think the critical lesson is to remember that these are just a few of the many dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of versions that were being produced. There was a lot of copying go on, and there is no reason at all to think that any one particular deck is directly copied from another. Instead, I tend to think of them as cousins rather than sons or mothers. But yes, I agree with you, the relationships between the decks are sometimes startling, and it is clear that there are relationships. Is there any doubt that the Conver and the Chosson are related somehow? But how do the Dodal and Noblet fit into this? The Dodal is the tricky one, as it "looks" like the Chosson and Conver, but seems to have details that match the Noblet.
Pen wrote:The changed text must indicate a crossing of borders - but in which direction, and in which order? It'd be wonderful if you'd make a start on that geographical/chronological map, Robert...
Pen
I feel a long way from making a map, but I appreciate the discussions like this because it helps to clarify the relationships. I personally suspect, at this point, that the Tarot de Marseille started in Italy and moved to France. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the Dodal harkens back to a version without numbers or titles in it. That the Dodal is a version where we see the titles and numbers being added to the images. That the Chosson and Conver represent a redrawing, one that seems predominantly based on the Dodal type decks. That the Noblet is also a redrawing, but based on the same sort of deck that the Dodal is based on. And that the Vieville may, in several cases, be the best representation of them all of an evolving version. I'm far from certain, and need a lot more evidence before I could come out and say "This is what I think happened", but to be fair, I state this now as it certainly will influence my perceptions. That said, a fine example of my lack of certainty is this discussion of the "bell" at the front of the Fool. If the Chosson and Conver were based on the Dodal, why is it more clearly defined in the "later" decks? In this case, it would seem that the Conver was the best representation, then the Chosson, and that the Dodal screws it up by not drawing it clearly, and that the Noblet doesn't know it exists.. completely discounting the theory I just suggested.
Clearly... more examination is necessary!