The Visconti - and the Marseilles

Huck

Change Visconti-Snake ---> Devil

Well, that is not a settled question and answer, it's a provocation to start and induce research about it.

Lothar suggested 1500 - French occupation. But nonetheless - it might happened quite different.
We've the list of the preacher - this is said to have been before 1500. There is a devil in it. Is the dating of the list secure? Surely not.
We've the "Hexenhammer" appearing in the 80ies ... perhaps already then a lot of things have changed, perhaps "Devil" became a theme then.

We've a Milanese tradition and a Ferrarese tradition and both have the devil in it. And both have a different number-row, the Ferrarese interpretation is not like "Galeazzo's scheme". How did this happen? This must have some logic.
Milan and Ferrara prodúced Trionfi decks already in the 50ies, Ferarra already in the 40ies but probably only very few. Matters developed at the courts and probably stayed at the courts for a time. But Trionfi was also a term in Florence and Florence had no court. These decks had "either 14" or were generally creative in a perhaps very broad sense, even the existence of 22-versions can't be excluded.
The first 22 in our research in "Trionfo-context" appeared in 1454 (!) - but it appears in context of Johannes-festivities in Florence, it seems, that the number of the used chariots was 22. But it was a religious festivity and somehow it is to exspect, that it was quite different to that, what we exspect as "Tarot cards" motives. But Boiardo's 22 is also very different. And there is no sign, that this religious "Trionfo" was accompanied by playing cards ... but what about a series of pictures, showing the different chariots? Using the number 22 might have wandered from object-group to object group.

So there are a lot of questions. The Trionfo-idea developed in 15th century ... and the cards accompanied them in unclear and probably "creative" manner. Assuming early "standards" guides research in the wrong direction.
And observe, that also the Germans had a Trionfo-deck at the Habsburger-marriage in 1496. We know the cards to it and we know, that this was a card deck without trumps. So even the existence of any "major Arcana" was a rule.
 

tmgrl2

First day of retirement...and this is what I am doing.

Rereading this entire amazing thread.

As I read, I kept thinking that when I internally reduce facts, details, dates and knowledge to some kind of internal North Star, I am pointed toward universalities that have probably existed in various cultures across a time/space continuum.

That being said, I often think of concepts and even works as having arisen and evolved simultaneously, not linearly.

I am reminded of the first time I taught the "Cinderella" story to fourth grade students, who began to ask questions about origins of the themes. As I researched the literature and began to realize that perhaps a thousand different countries/cultures had some form of the "Cinderella" folktale, I read further.

At the end of much research, it seemed to be the general consensus, after discussing how civilization grew, developed, relocated, reestablished and created their own stories....that

Because the themes were universal (content versus structure) there was really no need to discover which came "first" since universal themes are just that....

Now, as I read the children Mufaro's Beautiful Daughters (Africa), Little Scarface (Native American) or Cinder-Elly (the Manhattan Cinderella), while the "face" of the story re images and characters and locales changed, the underlying universal themes and lessons were there.

In some the element of telling the truth was the transforming characteristic of the Cinderella "heroine."

In others, it was the hope that no matter how bad things are, if one is good and true and does the right thing, goodness and truth shall reign.

Yet, all of these stories perhaps evolved simultaneously across historical periods in an effort to represent deeper universal beliefs.

This removes for me the need to have the time/space continuum as a basis for examination of the value and beauty and of the truths held within various Tarot decks.

Perhaps, I can look at a Visconti and arrive at certain universal concepts...similar to those I may garner from gazing at the "sister" card in a Tarot de Marseille deck....
or in a RWS deck. Some "truths" may not, in fact, arise, as I study or gaze at some decks, yet will with others.

For this reason. I like to explore many decks and traditions to place those little dots within that eventually form my own gestalt (perhaps not so UN-universal) of what the Tarot means when used as a tool for guidance or even divination.

Time/space for me are an artificial and limiting way of examing that which has always been.

I'm not even sure that I think God "created" the Devil.

Perhaps, there is just the Unmoved Mover and all that has emanated from that origin is good and all that we deem
"evil" or "opposite" is illusion evolved from ego and fear.

Rambling, but I love this thread.

terri
 

Diana

tmgrl2 said:
I'm not even sure that I think God "created" the Devil.

Perhaps, there is just the Unmoved Mover and all that has emanated from that origin is good and all that we deem "evil" or "opposite" is illusion evolved from ego and fear.

terri: Congratulations on your retirement!!! Oh happy days! :) :) :)

I'm not 100% certain of what you meant above. If you meant that Le Diable in The Tarot is not evil, I agree with you 100%. Le Diable is a strong ally and helps us towards enlightenment (because after meeting Him, we are able to free ourselves from our self-imposed limitations in La Maison-Dieu). Le Diable XV is possibly just an evolved version of Le Pape V.
 

tmgrl2

Diana said:
terri: Congratulations on your retirement!!! Oh happy days! :) :) :)

I'm not 100% certain of what you meant above. If you meant that Le Diable in The Tarot is not evil, I agree with you 100%. Le Diable is a strong ally and helps us towards enlightenment (because after meeting Him, we are able to free ourselves from our self-imposed limitations in La Maison-Dieu). Le Diable XV is possibly just an evolved version of Le Pape V.

Merci, Diana!! Day One of Retirement!

To elaborate too much on my above comments, we would have to move this post into a thread on a discussion of "beliefs" and "spirituality."

I still hold within much of my study of The Course in Miracles. As such, when I think of the Tarot, and of which one came first, or which one may be an Ur-Tarot or of the value of one tradition over another, I can't help but call to mind many of the principles I garnered from The Course in Miracles.

What I meant to say is that perhaps if we were have access to direct revelation, there would be no "specialness" of anything or anyone (or any Tarot deck or tradition).

I, too, do not think of Le Diable as evil. The further we detour into fear away from that which created us, the more we are likely to see "separations" or "differences."

I respond to what I perceive. As I perceive, so I behave.

With this in mind, then, the perception of an individual who may use one deck or tradition over another as a reading Tool in Tarot, colors that person's interpretation and, even, by extension, his or her behavior.

Only the mind is capable of error, and thus, we react or can act "wrongly" if responding to "misthought."

Here, intent, e.g., responding to anything with anything except a desire to heal, to remember, to reconnect with that which we have forgotten, produces a confusion about "rightness" and "wrongness."

As many here have said in the past, "there are no wrong cards."

If one holds this belief, then, it is the perception of the reader, the interpretor, ultimately, that determines the form that thought takes.

Whether I choose a Cary-Yale Visconti or a Pierpont-Morgan Visconti or my dearly loved Hadar Tarot de Marseille, or even the 22 Trumps from my beloved Flornoy Noblet or Dodal, once I set aside this discussion of origins and Ur's, the tool is only as holy or spirit-directed as the reader who attempts to connect through quiet reflection and meditation with that which is The Origin of all.

If I believe that Fear and Anxiety are of the Ego, then it is the Ego I must set aside in order to allow the miracle of revelation and truth to channel through me. In fact, I believe that the Ego is of our own creation.

The Innocent mind does not have to give up or sacrifice anything since it already has everything. It tries to protect its wholeness and honor other minds, because honoring other minds is, I believe, the natural form of greeting between people who believe in love.

So, with this tidbit from within, from my calling up of what I perceive and, therefore, what form my interpretations take from these perceptions, I personally don't feel a need to have an answer as to which Tarot tradition is Ur-Tarot.

As we evolve, hopefully, we can encompass the scope of all that has gone before us, so that when we use a Tarot
to read THE Tarot for a sitter, we can go to that place spiritually where we become "right-minded."

I believe that, at least for me, then, the discussions like this become moot. Grab a mug, fill it up and head for the Mead-Hall.

There, we all, returning warriors, can gather in the light, soak up the warmth, eat good food, sing and revel.

Discussions abound, but within a safe haven, a community, where loyalty is paramount and stories are told.

So, mostly, I love reading these threads.

When it comes to reading for a sitter, however, I choose whichever deck strikes my spiritual fancy (or my sitter's) and for that instant in time, it is my Ur-Tarot.

terri
 

jmd

Beautiful posts, as always, tmgrl2.

One of the early threads specifically on this concept of the Ür-Tarot was a thread by that name started by catboxer many months ago:


It is fair to also say that when I first coined the term, what was furthest from any consideration is that we would one day be discussing which of any deck bears closest resemblence. In many ways, it is a little like speaking of the origin... and reminds me of earlier comments I made in a post in Talking Tarot within a thread titled:


In a nutshell, I ask whether 'if someone was to truly see into the 'origins' of the first Atouts, is the 'origin' seen the one which answers its physical and sociological 'origin', or spiritual origin?'

For myself, it is the latter that is of greater significance, though the former must of course also form part of a deeper and greater reflections leading to better understanding as to what develops and emerges...

...and congratulations and best wishes on your retirement, tmgrl2! :)
 

Parzival

Visconti and Marseilles

First two paragraphs are from JMD's prior post:

In a nutshell, I ask whether 'if someone was to truly see into the 'origins' of the first Atouts, is the 'origin' seen the one which answers its physical and sociological 'origin', or spiritual origin?'

For myself, it is the latter that is of greater significance, though the former must of course also form part of a deeper and greater reflections leading to better understanding as to what develops and emerges...



Beautifully thought and expressed. I think the answer is former and latter, in that the actual sociological and physical roots help us to understand how Major and Minor arcana emerged and combined and standardized , minus misconceptions and illusions. But to end there is to miss the essential archetypal realities which pre-exist and post-exist the external history. Or maybe your question should remain open, without quick conclusions such as just attempted.
 

tmgrl2

jmd said:
In a nutshell, I ask whether 'if someone was to truly see into the 'origins' of the first Atouts, is the 'origin' seen the one which answers its physical and sociological 'origin', or spiritual origin?'

For myself, it is the latter that is of greater significance, though the former must of course also form part of a deeper and greater reflections leading to better understanding as to what develops and emerges...

jmd....

Merci....for the good wishes.

A bit of my discussion on the Ur-Tarot was intended to be tongue-in-cheek to the extent that I wanted to create a more universal application for what could become an Ur-Tarot in the moment of a reading.

I do love the above statement, however, about physical/sociological versus spiritual origin.

I believe this statement of yours is the basis for the great pleasure derived from the study of the earlier decks and of the history of the Tarot.

I have just purchased the Cary-Yale and the Pierpont-Morgan Visconti decks, since I agree with what you have always said, jmd...we must examine at least a reproduction of some of these decks to fully appreciate origins, iconology, details and evolving characteristics.

In no way, will I in my remaining lifetime, gain the knowledge of so many here who have done that in such great depth. Between the threads on various topics concerning early traditions and deck creations, and my own examination of the few decks I have purchased, I begin to see some of what is being discussed here at AT.

If I had to dig deep within myself at present, with my limited knowledge of The Tarot, and then listen to that small whisper I hear, I am leaning toward the Tarot de Marseille as my "spiritual" Tarot.

When I read for someone "live," if I use a TdM, I use either the Hadar or the Camoin. I do love both my Noblet and Dodal 22 Atouts from letarot.com. I have yet to examine them in-depth, but the images are magnificent.

I shall have more time now to read and study. I have the two new "Visconiti" versions to examine. Since I keep many of these decks in photo albums, it allows me to open several at a time and examine the same cards from different decks. This still works the best for me.

terri
 

Cerulean

The original question by Darla and a hopefully thoughtful answer

Darla's question
"Someone in this thread (I'm not sure if it was you) mentioned that they treasured the Marseilles so much because it's the UR- Tarot. Since the Visconti is the oldest known deck I was just curious, why the Marseilles and not the oldest."

Diana's comment:
I have my ideas about this, but before posting them, I would be happy if some other people who consider, like I do, the Marseilles to be the Ur-Tarot, posted their answers. I just wanted to get Darla's question posted so that it would not go lost, because it's a really interesting question and I think it will help a lot of us understand our own views about this. (Sometimes putting things into words makes us understand our own selves better, and our own views.

Cerulean's hopeful reply as well:
I was hoping to post a few thoughts that might not have been raised: when I read commentary by Kaplan, Dummett and Decker in various introductions to Visconti decks, I read this information and the implications that occurs to me might be suggestive of those who do prefer Marseilles as a favored standard or ultimate tarot:

P.9-10, Visconti-Sforza Tarot Cards
"The (tarot) game was immensely popular all over France during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. After 1700 it was played only in the eastern part of the country. Following World War II, the game experienced a great revival, and it is once again played everywhere. The principal standardized set of designs for the tarot pack, the celebrated Tarot de Marseille, named after the city where so many were produced, was demonstrably descended from the standard pattern used in Milan for popular tarot packs from the fifteenth to seventeenth century. In many respects it remained remarkably faithful to its prototype, though diverging in certain details. The most important French innovation was the inscription of the name of each trump and court at the foot of the card. In German-speaking parts of Europe a variant form, the Tarot of de Beasancon, was used, in which Pope and Popess were replaced by Jupiter and Juno. The use of French inscriptions here testifies to the derivation of the game from French-speaking areas."

There is more... including the spread and use of French suits (such as hearts, etc.,).. and the eventual adaptation in 1740 by the Bolognese card makers producing an adaptation of the Tarot de Marseilles for Lombardy, complete with French inscriptions and trumps in the French order..." (eventually the pattern retook Italian titles, but that Milanese adaptation did not survive the 19th century...)

I believe that for people who treasure the 'celebrated Marseilles,' they perhaps see and feel and understand there is a preservation of heritage in the pattern that harkens back to the Milanese variations.

Yet also because the Marseilles pattern's observable historical heritage for subtle transition and innovation in design from the 1700s throughout the 1900s--I can understand those who favor Marseilles would see flexibility in the design. However, it's not a huge design variation in color and form, in comparison to the colorings and woodcut or stencil diversity as the Milanese decks, (no standard Di Gumppenberg pattern in the 30 year printing history from 1811-45). My theory suggests those with a personal familiarity with their favored French Marseilles might also have an easier time reading from another French Marseilles because there might have been a more consistent look and feel to their 78 card Marseilles decks?

And I may be ignorant of Marseilles variations, but I don't think there is as much variation in order, lack of this or that trump, or minor card and questions that jump from parades and sermons to courtly love poems--it's 78 cards with 22 majors and 16 courts and yes there's variations, but its a 'standard' by the time one speaks of the Marseilles pattern. (I am suggesting in this post that the Vieville and Paris variations in the 1600s are prototypes). So it has the advantages of historical heritage and yet a stronger stability in design form...

I don't know if this makes sense, but I am hoping this rings true in some way with some Marseilles fans...this my attempt at trying to post positively to those fans here...

My best wishes,

Cerulean