Were Names and Numbers on Early Tarot de Marseille?

[le pendu]

I've been spending a lot of time looking at various TdM and cousin decks, and am leaning towards thinking that the earliest TdM cards probably did not have Names or Numbers on them.

One reason for thinking this is the way the images seem to be cut off on the tops and bottoms of some TdM cards.

Another is looking at the Cary Sheet and the Sforza Castle cards.

What is the general opinon on this? What's yours?

best,
robert

[Fulgour]

Beginning with Le Bateleur and Aleph with the rest
of the cards proceeding logically to Le Fol and Tav,
numbering the cards was simply rather redundant.

But look at the state of things today: people can't
even recognize the alphabet or agree on numbers.

[Dark Inquisitor]

I think I have read more than a few times that the early tarot majors had no numbers and no order . Which I find wonderful- so much more thought provoking , chaotic, and interactive . Pours marvelous fiery destruction down upon numerology and fool's journey theories. :D

[DoctorArcanus]

If somebody reads this thread and doesn't know the Cary sheet, please have a look: http://association.tarotstudies.org/news24.html
It's beautiful, and seems to seriously support Robert's hypothesis.

The fact that ancient decks had no numbers on them points out that the order of the trumps was well known by all players. The fact that in different cities different ordering were used points out that the order was known by the players, but was not implicit in the cards. If a necessary order were implicit in the trumps, players in different cities would have used that implicit ordering, instead of producing new orderings.

I think that the designers of the first deck(s) had very clear the reasons of the ordering of the trumps, but such reasons were lost on their less literate contemporaries, and are even more lost on us, XXI century schyzoid tarotists ;)

Marco

[Fulgour]

I think that the designers of the first deck(s) had very clear the reasons of the ordering of the trumps, but such reasons were lost on their less literate contemporaries, and are even more lost on us, XXI century schyzoid tarotists ;) MarcoGosh DoctorArcanus, I'm not a schyzoid (yet) but I can count,
A1 B2 C3 D4 E5 F6 (how am I doing so far?) G7 H8 I9 J10... :)

Art as Letterform (Part 2)
by Mark Filipas

http://www.spiritone.com/~filipas/Masquerade/Essays/epsilon.html
Click on this link to "read" all about it...

[le pendu]

The fact that ancient decks had no numbers on them points out that the order of the trumps was well known by all players.

If we take the Visconti decks into account, there are no numbers. But we can see in the early woodblock cards in Kaplan that some numbers were started to be added almost right away, on cards that perhaps were either confusing, or to clear up differences in how the game was played in different towns possibly.

If we look at the Vieville deck, we have images without titles, and we have numbers that look very much like an addition. The "space" has not been created yet.

If we look at the Sforza Castle cards, there are several deck samples that have no title or number, the World being, I think, the most interesting.

Also, some of the pips are also shown without the numbers.

When we look at the TdM cards, it feels to me that many of the cards are cut off. It's interesting to look at the Vieville Chariot and the Strength cards for instance. On Vieville, you can clearly see the top of the Chariot where other "scalloped" Chariot roofs are cut off (Noblet, Dodal, etc). Strength shows the top of the hat and the foot with the tail of the lion.

I'm suspicious that these were details that would have appeared on TdM decks, but were cut off when the name and number areas were added.

I'd even go as far as to wonder if the only reason Death remained unnamed is because too much importance was placed on the scythe to have allowed it to be cut off.

It seems to me that the TdM started with images that had no name and probably no number, and that they were added not by enlarging the cards, but by replacing part of the image area.

I don't think this is an unusual belief, I'm under the impression that it is pretty commonly assumed to have been the process, but perhaps I'm wrong.. just been thinking about it lately and appreciate everyone sharing their thoughts.

best,
robert

[Fulgour]

I hadn't thought of imagining a medieval usgames,
but then if every known deck qualifies as evidence
of an unknown other deck ~anything at all works.

[le pendu]

I get your meaning Fulgour, but then I guess that means the earliest TdM was created by Jean Noblet in 1650?

I think most of us assume the TdM may be at least 150 years older than that.

And we do have the Cary Sheet and the Sforza Castle cards that might be clues.

best,
robert

PS
Would it more likely be a medieval Lo Scarabeo? ; )

[wandking]

to say the first cards were not numbered is dangerous. exact indisputable dates of early tarot evidence is indeed hard to find. In early tarot we see various examples of numbering mixed with un-numbered examples of actual cards. I suspect with French TdM decks, which are quite numerous, there is no hard and fast rule when it comes to numbering.

[Fulgour]

And we do have the Cary Sheet and the Sforza Castle
cards that might be clues.
The "Cary" sheet is just that, a scrap of paper,
while entire decks stand intact for us to view.

As far as "Visconti" decks, illiterate rich people
who couldn't count or spell for beans, would've
wanted a user-friendly pack of 'nice' silly cards.

[le pendu]

The "Cary" sheet is just that, a scrap of paper,
while entire decks stand intact for us to view.

As far as "Visconti" decks, illiterate rich people
who couldn't count or spell for beans, would've
wanted a user-friendly pack of 'nice' silly cards.

Yikes! What a strong reaction Fulgour!

The Cary sheet is more than a scrap of paper, it is the first sign of several of the designs that came to fall under TdM style, I think you might be underrating it. On the other hand, it isn't a deck, and even if it were, it isn't a TdM deck as many of the cards have no relation to the TdM.

As for the Visconti family, I can't come to their defence, but I can thank them for creating such wonderful pieces of art which many historians believe to have been THE first tarot, and as far as I know, no one can prove otherwise. Were they really illiterate?

I was referring to the Sforza Castle cards, not the Visconti cards BTW, but I know you know that.

best,
robert

[wandking]

they weren't illeterate either lol

[wandking]

Did you find those missing Visconti Sforza cards? I've been wondering where those missing cards went and I'm glad once again they are "entire decks that stand intact for us to view."

On a more serious note, tell me more about this Sforza Castle Deck please, robert.

[le pendu]

Hi Wandking,

The Sforza Castle cards are shown in Kaplan II. I don't have it in front of me to give exact references. They are not one deck, but scraps from many decks. Dating of the fragments is not certain, there seems to be a variety, I believe most scholars date them to around 1700.

There are two Trumps in the collection, a Sun card that looks very much like a Noblet or Dodal, and a World card. The World is very typical TdM (if you consider a caped figure TdM, which I certainly do), but has no Name. The number is on the card, but is "outside" the border on the top.

Interesting to me is that some of the Pips also have no number where we often find them on Swords and Batons. I'll look it up when I get back to the book later, but one of the cards, where our TdMs have numbers on the sides, has ornament.. which pretty much matchs the same ornament on the Vieville deck where the numbers are also lacking. The "ornament" on the pip cards more closely matches the "Vieville, Noblet, Dodal, Payen" -style than the "Chosson, Conver" -style.

best,
robert

[wandking]

thanks, i'll have to look them up in my copy of vol 2... you know, after buying vol 1 and 2, i found vol 3 a bit of a let down.

[Fulgour]

Yikes! What a strong reaction Fulgour!I do get "yikey" but it's fun, and meant as such :)
Say though like with Shakespeare and the theatre,
where one cannot be separated from the other in
terms of origins and intent: he wrote for the stage.
Tarot and astrology are the same, hands in gloves.
And that means if you look at a "real" Tarot deck it
will clearly have some basic, recognizable features.

The Phoenician alphabet is the "blueprint" to follow,
and there's no QBLH or mystical secret meanings...
so if the idea is to just seek confusion and disorder
when that's not at all the case, I do wonder why?

[le pendu]

I've scanned a couple of images for comparison.

First is the World card from the Sforza Castle, Page 293, Kaplan II. Group 4.

http://www.tarothistory.com/images/world_comparison.jpg

The first image is the World card from the Sforza Castle, the second is Vieville (c. 1650), the third is Jean Dodal (c. 1700), the fourth is Nicolas Conver (1760).

To my eye, the Sforza Castle card looks very close to the Jean Dodal. One thing on the card I have never seen is the wings of the Angel and the Eagle crossing, I wonder if any other World card shows this? The cape, and the position of the feet of the figure on the card are a good match as well with the Dodal, as is the general shape of the wreath. Yet, the Sforza card shows the bodies of the figures at the bottom, in a similar way to the Vieville, but the Vieville has the figures on the bottom reversed, which is odd. Note also how the top of the Dodal and Conver seem to "cut into" the number area that is not interupted in the Sforza Castle or the Vieville.

Here is the 8 of Batons for comparison:
http://www.tarothistory.com/images/8_wands.jpg

Here, I think it is interesting that there are no numbers on the sides of the Sforza Castle card. When compared to the Vieville which also has no number, we can see a very similar ornament. The Dodal and the Conver have, I think, replaced the ornament with the numbers.

Next up, The Sun from the Castle Sforza, page 296, Kaplan II. Group 11.

best,
robert

[le pendu]

Here I am showing a comparison of the Sun from the Castle Sforza, page 296, Kaplan II. Group 11.
http://tarothistory.com/images/sun.jpg
I've included the Jean Noblet (c. 1650), Jean Dodal (c. 1700), and the Nicolas Conver (1760).

In this image, the sun itself looks very similar to the Jean Dodal, in fact, I am hard pressed to find Suns with only straight lines, not the mix of curved and straight lines. As far as I know, the only decks to feature the sun in this manner is the Dodal and Payen decks.

Yet, the figures below the sun look similar to the Noblet figures, with a female on the right hand side. And again, the Dodal figures seem cut off on the bottom. The Conver is missing the "drops" rising from the upper part of the sun completely.

best,
robert

[Dark Inquisitor]

so if the idea is to just seek confusion and disorder
when that's not at all the case, I do wonder why?

Just a personal unprovable opinion , but the less something is organized the more open it is to chance and flexibility . The more we categorize, organize, compartmentalize something that is random, open ended and free flowing, the more we interfere and cut it off . It is a fine feeling to have all our numberings and the meanings of all our numbers safely under control, but then who will jump off the cliff and see what flies? The universe is very chaotic and very organized at the same time though. One does not exclude the other .

[Fulgour]

One does not exclude the other .
So many books either tow the Thoth line (0=1, 1=2, 2=3...)
or simply go with "let it all hang out" that for me to discover
the answers were right there under my nose was pure luck.

How's that for jumping off a cliff ~ back to the beginning!
And it's simple. But what do the "attributions" really mean?
The earliest people could see that time would relentlessly
wash away anything they created ~ even their civilisations.
So they encoded the most basic concepts in an alphabet,
trusting to fate that it might assist the future generations.

"Knowing" that the letters correspond to certain concepts
doesn't tell you anything more than it's a strange world we
inhabit and our time here is short. But I can close my eyes
right now and "point" to each of the planets and name the
houses they are in... I am an Earthling, and proud to be so.

[Fulgour]

It is a fine feeling to have all our numberings and the
meanings of all our numbers safely under control...This makes me sound like I would have the Tarot be a clock,
ticking idiotically on the wall, and nothing like the Sun of day.
We turn constantly toward the East, wobbling on our course,
with the Moon dancing around us reflecting at shifting angles.

Tarot comes to us as a living creation, a part of our heritage.
What I see is a reflection of myself, an investment of my soul.
What does "Aleph" mean? It means we are 'alive' for a Reason.
Is it different than the planet Mercury? It sure is at my house.

[DoctorArcanus]

If we take the Visconti decks into account, there are no numbers. But we can see in the early woodblock cards in Kaplan that some numbers were started to be added almost right away, on cards that perhaps were either confusing, or to clear up differences in how the game was played in different towns possibly.

My source on ancient tarot is "Il Mondo e L'Angelo" by Michael Dummet. Such book was supposed to be a translation of The Game of Tarot, but while working on the translation Dummet decided for a number of changes, so in the end this italian book is an independent work. Chapter VII is about "The ordering of the Trumps" and Dummet writes (I translate from good Italian to terrible English):

We know four different popular tarot decks printed from wood engravings in the XVI century. Only one of these four bears numbers on all the trumps (all but the highest trump). One has numbers only on the lowest twelve trumps. The other two have no numbers at all. In these early decks, when the numbers are present, they appear where the picture leaves room for the number - i.e. the numbers appear in different positions on different cards. ..... Card makers added the numbers by modifying existing wood engravings originally used for printing unnambered cards.

I hope you can find this concepts in Oxford English in The Game of Tarot :)


If we look at the Vieville deck, we have images without titles, and we have numbers that look very much like an addition. The "space" has not been created yet.

I agree with your point. In particular, the Temperance card presents a banner that was mistakenly engraved and appears "mirrored" on the print. As if the engraver were not used to engrave writing. The number is correctly engraved, so it seems to have been engraved by someone else. The position of the numer, as suggested by Dummet, seems to be "the only available free space". The number was not designed with the figure.

I'd even go as far as to wonder if the only reason Death remained unnamed is because too much importance was placed on the scythe to have allowed it to be cut off.

My idea is that Death is the only trump that does not appear on the Vieville poem on the Ace of Coins / Two of Cups cards....if we assume that the Ace of Coins stands for the Wheel and the Two of Cups for Temperance. I think reference to the name of Death was avoided for supertition. But of course I am not at all sure...it's difficult to be sure of anything when talking of such ancient subjects. I agree that the scythe cannot be removed from the card without causing a major damage to it, so it's also likely you are right on this point too.

Marco

[venicebard]

I'm not sure you don't overstate slightly when you say many on the Cary sheet have ‘no relation’ to the Marseilles (though I'd agree with respect to LeDiable, little anyway). As for the painted cards (I am between you and Fulgour on these), I hardly see how they could be the first. I seek to demonstrate this in greater detail (or prove myself wrong), but it may take time.

But I find your main thrust here intriguing, le pendu. I am going to study this aspect myself as best I can when I again I have a chance (2nd week in August, hopefully). I am hot to know if further revealing details can perhaps be unearthed by this approach.

The Sforza LeMonde (Vieville’s gives me the creeps) looks most like the Dodal, only of finer quality, notice. Note the eagle’s halo is truncated though. I think you are right about the bottom: looks from these anyway that the bodies of the beasts at the bottom were traded for title-room. Perhaps also at the top: we could have lost crossed wings, and it would be extremely interesting from an iconological point of view, as the eagle is the usher of souls aloft and hence its ‘intersection’ with man would be the cross (that which is conceived to be the cause of their going aloft instead of down).

I’m wondering if perhaps the numbers and titles were forced on the makers by ‘big government’, for tax clarity or something (perhaps related to the smashing of moulds). Oh, yeah, with the 8 of Baton it is clear what we are ‘missing’ because of these tax collectors who couldn’t count staves! (a curse on their kind) I for one feel cheated. Note once again the Sforza is better quality, comparable in delicacy of pattern to the Conver.

Looking at the four versions of LeSoleil makes it clear these are youthful chiefs, in a sense, meeting at the wall (Hadrian’s?) separating their domains, which makes the little tits on the one on the right rather odd, from my point of view... on the Sforza, it could simply be to show the one more effeminate than the other, but Nodal looks 'off' to me: notice it’s the only one in which the dress is not identical one to the other. I make them out to be twins, save for Nodal’s ‘obstinacy’ (forgive me).

I think you are building an interesting case here for the antiquity of the Dodal pattern, as even if the Sforza cards are roughly contemporary they point to an earlier, non-titled version that was copied in Italy, or, as you seem to believe, a precursor that was Italian (in origin). Of course the Cary sheet illustrates your basic point, and I for one do not consider it at all irrelevant to the history of the Marseilles (though I tend to see it as offshoot or degeneration from Marseilles).

[jmd]

That the Sforza Castle (SC) well cards show a very fine craftsmanship, and possibly a very early one, I personally agree.

Le_Pendu and I had also discussed some of this earlier, but thought I would add a little to this important thread.

Firstly, I personally wholeheartedly agree with Le_Pendu that it is very likely that very early woodblocks had neither number nor title, and that, as also pointed out by Dummett, one can see how the numbers seem 'afterthoughts' on those cards.

Also, as pointed out by Le_Pendu, XIII's image does make it, of all cards, more difficult to add a title at the bottom. This would not have prevented one been added to the side, however, of have the figure partially redrawn to include a title (as did occur with some decks).

From carefully looking at the various images we have access to, it does seem that most carvers used existing images to simply make later woodblocks, with some thereby slowly losing or altering confusing detail. Ie, the images were, in most cases, copied one from the other, from card to woodblock, woodblock to card, card to woodblock, etc.. The consequence of this, if working from a model without title to one with title, is that the general image will remain to proportion, but part of the lower section will be lost.

Again, I personally think here that Le_Pendu's keen eye has certainly revealed an important element in the diffusion of Tarot.

With regards to the SC cards, that they were found in the Sforza Castle does not in the least show their place of manufacture. With, for example, Toulouse having cardmakers from at least the mid-fifteenth century (Cf Namadev/Alain Bougearel site (http://geocities.com/alainbougearel/)), the provenance of the SC cards remains quite un-established... though clear and beautiful they are, and show a finesse that also suggests their early make.

[firemaiden]

This is a fascinating thread, Robert, thank you. I certainly can see what you are seeing that the sforza castle examples seem closest to the Dodal, only finer, as Marco and jmd point out. Jmd you say their being finer points to their being earlier examples? Do I understand correctly? It's like they came almost from the same woodblock, except - they ones that printed first have the lines are crisp and neat - then later prints (like Dodal) blurred and smudgy? (Do we have a thread on the process of making the woodcuts and then printing them? ) It's interesting, we hear so often about the Marseille being ugly, and okay, don't listen jmd, but it's true, the lines are crude, the figures look lumpy - but they look sooo much better in the sforza example, and on the Cary sheet too. It would be fun to include side by side comparisons with these and the Cary sheet.