The Sun/Le Soleil - Contrasting the Dodal and Conver

jmd

Le Soleil has, on the whole, much that is consistent across Marseille-style decks.

But let's have a look at those important two standards, the Dodal and the Conver:


Dodal ->
dodal_XVIIII.jpg
Conver ->
conver_XVIIII.jpg

Two really clear and obvious differences are in the number of droplets represented, and in the rays emanating from the Sun itself.

With regards to the number of droplets, this varies even across various versions from the Payen family (I'll talk about these in another post), so perhaps is simply an indication as to aesthetic inclusion and amount of space they hold.

The curved rays on the Conver are reminiscent of the similar pattern used by the Visconti family. For example, in the Castle in Parma is a large copper Sun in a stair-case:

Visconti_Castle_Sun.jpg

Another distinction are the lined-rays between the main days appearing on the Conver. Here it seems that the woodcarver very carefully indeed went to the trouble of ensuring that these were straight and clear.

The general stance of the two individuals is similar, and in each case the one on the right-hand of the card appears to be on some kind of raised ground.

The Dodal appears to have been taken from an earlier model to which the name panel has been added, resulting in one foot from each individual being 'cut' off. Here Fulgour also brings to our attention (in another thread) that the horizontal line on the Dodal is not a single one, but rather stops and starts at precisely where the leg lines of the right-hand person's 'removed' foot.

I have used, by the way, an enhanced copy of Kenji's personal original Conver deck for this constrast exercise, and that for one very important detail... look at the numbering!
 

Fulgour

darkened and dreary

When compared to what is written about the meaning
of this card, I cannot help but notice something that
seldom gets mentioned ~ THE SUN IS FROWNING :(

Why did the artists deliberately and consistently depict
such an inscrutable visage ~ rather than cheerily gay?
 

Clay

Is the sun really frowning?

Maybe this is a cross-cultural difference, but the sun doesn't look as though it's frowning to me. It looks as though it has a quite neutral expression. Of course, I should add that I live in Korea. Often foreigners who are new to Korea think that Koreans are frowning all the time, whereas we think that walking down the street with a big grin on your face looks blithely idiotic. There's no need for the sun to smile down on the children (if indeed that's what they are) for the sun shineth equally on the just and the unjust, as I think I heard some preacher say once.

Clay
 

whipsilk

I agree with Clay that I saw the sun's expression to be more neutral than frowning, although I also thought the Conver showed a "more neutral" expression. What did strike me was that all four of the human figures (as far as expressions can be deciphered) look more or less unhappy -- still at odds with the modern interpretation of this card, but then medieval expressions did tend toward solemnity -- there isn't much contemporary art that shows individuals with, in Clay's eloquent phrase, a "blithely idiotic" big grin. That, of course, may be cultural as well, but there were probably fewer things to smile about during the 14th and 15th centuries.

With regard to the XVIIII/XVIII issue, it looks as if the final I in the Conver might have been rubbed away, since there's a bit of a "serif" where that numeral would be.

As to the droplets, what exactly do they signify? Surely no one, even in those relatively unenlightened days, thought the sun was responsible for rain? Are they the medieval equivalent of rays?
 

le pendu

Here's The Sun from the Jean Noblet Tarot, Paris, circa 1650.
19-le-soleil.jpg

The most striking thing about this card is that the figures are clearly a man and a woman.

Also interesting is that in this case, the sun is more similiar in design to the Conver than to the Dodal, very unusual for the Noblet, with the combination of wavy and straight main lines, with the straight single lines behind them.

There seems to be fewer, larger, straighter bricks that make the wall.

best,
robert
 

le pendu

This next image is from the "Sforza Castle" cards.. one of several cards/fragments discovered from a wide variety of decks.

Dating is uncertain, ranging anywhere from the 1500s to 1700s, although I personally think many tend to be very early due to lack of names or names/numbers on them.

Several of the cards, including this one, can be found in Kaplan's Encyclopedia of Tarot, Volume II. This from page 296.

sforza_XVIIII.jpg

This is really interesting because of a few things..

First there is no title on this card, but the number XVIIII can be seen at the top.

Next, looking at the style of the sun, it is very similar to the sun in the Dodal deck.

Here the figure on the right is probably female.. like on the Noblet deck.

But the figure on the left is also bare-toped, unlike the Noblet, and like Dodal and Conver.

Here the figure's feet cross, unlike any of the other decks.

The pattern of bricks is clear, like on the Noblet, but the size is more similar to the Dodal and Conver.

best,
robert
 

jmd

Thank you for adding those images - they are of course not only superb, but important ones.

For myself, a number of elements comes out quite clearly. The first is, as mentioned above, that both the Noblet and the Sforza Castle cards display what appears as a young man and woman. Something that appears to have been 'lost' in many decks since, and only again recently picked up in more 'magically' oriented decks.

The other is something that has long appeared that we 'read' perhaps with incorrect eyes.

If we are to see the Sun as shedding its benign rays of light on all who are below, how are these be depicted? Presumably, as drops of light.

Light, however, can be seen as being opposite water, in that its point would reach its destination first, a little like an arrow-head.

Perhaps, then, the droplets are depicted as emanating from the Sun, points outwards, in each of the cards thus far presented.

This perspective does require that we re-look at the image with eyes so accustomed to only seeing droplets as though they are of water (or liquid). Yet, even until relatively recent times, light was at times itself described in terms more reminiscent of liquids (and I am not here talking of the suggestion of 'liquid light' presented in the past few years in some science magazine I do not recall), whilst at the same time having a directed focus.

It is interesting to try and think through how light is to be explained in terms of the mediæval world view. If it was deemed fiery, then, its 'natural' location being in the fire-realm, it would not descent to the earth's surface; if air-like, likewise; yet, if it has an aspect of the element of water (the element, not physical water), then it would account for its possible emanation towards terrestial regions, and yet spread out as water does.

Of course, this is also where the analogy (as we would describe it) also fails, for it unashamedly also rises to the ceiling, and does not drop within the cave.

But I have perhaps taken this post further than warranted in terms of looking at the cards... the point (excuse the pun) simply being that the droplets may certainly be dew ascending, or light 'dew' descending, points directing their course.
 

jmd

Having just looked again at the Cary Sheet in connection with its recent thread, the 'droplets' from the Sun thereon only seem to support my suggestion above - something I had not noticed before (I at times should re-visit this important sheet more than I do!).
 

Pen

I think it's possible that something more spiritual is implied by those droplets. The subject of both the woodcut below and the painting is 'The Visitation'. The woodcut is from Hind's 'An Introduction to a History of Woodcut'.
 

Attachments

  • TheVisitation2.jpg
    TheVisitation2.jpg
    97.2 KB · Views: 194
  • visitation.jpg
    visitation.jpg
    106.9 KB · Views: 188

Bernice

Goldenweb: I think it's possible that something more spiritual is implied by those droplets.
Hmm... Paul Huson suggests that 'droplets' may be mositure drawn up from the earth to the Sun. It's really noticable that the pointed ends are upside-down if they're meant to be emanating from the Sun. But maybe that's the way they drew things in those days....

Bee :) (baffled)