Flornoy's reproductions of the Noblet and Dodal - some notes

[jmd]

In various other threads, I have made some passing remarks regarding Flornoy's reproductions. As the Flornoys are also now posting here, and given some correspondence we have had, I thought I would be quite specific.

Please note that I highly value his reproductions, which may be viewed at LeTarot.com.


So... having made a small remark in another post which mentions that Jean-Claude Flornoy’s hand-drawn reproductions bear some minor alterations in detail, I'd better elaborate. This is of course inevitable, yet they are remarkable for, also, their careful meticulousness. But let me point out some of the minor alterations I noted as I compared them – I do not, at this stage, have access to a full set of photographic electronic/digital reproductions the BN held originals, so only comment on some of these.

With both decks, the most ‘obvious’ is the apparent disparities of proportion. Minute, yet significant enough for instant recognition. Flornoy’s Noblet is more ‘squashed’ than the original, and his Dodal more elongated. These are very small proportional differences, but, as I said, significant to (at least my) naked eyes to notice.

Overall, his work has a rectilinearity to it absent in the originals. At first, I thought this may have been simply due to the careful and precise way in which the Flornoys filled the spaces with colour, as opposed to the more haphazard, and faded, blending which is evident in the cards now centuries old. Another aspect is the difference in font – though apparently irrelevant, certain letters may bear a particular relation to certain other parts which, in the reproduction, cannot thus be checked (I’ll mention an example below).

Let me, however, mention just few cards from each deck.

Firstly the Noblet – for which I’ll point out only three cards, Justice, La maison Dieu and the Bateleur.

• Justice

Justice’s ‘necklace’ on the original has marks on it which are curved on the original, but everyone straight on the reproduction. The difference gives the impression that whereas on the original it seems that what she wears is rope-like (or curved cylindrical). The portion of red above her elbow on the right hand side of the card is without woodcut lines on the original (running roughly vertically), but is without any such lines on the reproduction. The original, with the lines, gives it the appearance of a semi-curved wing, the yellow section being the underwing, the reddish section the outer part. This is further accentuated by the mild (vertical) curve found on the original which becomes very rectilinear on Flornoy’s.

• La Maison Dieu

My e.version of this card is quite poor – the lower half being relatively out of focus. The upper half, however, has some smaller differences which may have important ramifications. For example, the reddish brick above the two arched windows extends, in the original, to about the width of the right-hand arch, whereas on Flornoy’s it is evened out equally near the top of each arch.

More significantly, however, the colour used in the original for both the top of the ‘crown’ and the exhuming ‘flames’ are the same, whereas Flornoy makes the crown golden. In the original, the ‘crown’ has flame-like ambiguous qualities, with even the two most top ‘points’ curving upwards like flames – these are rectilinear in the reproduction.

Of the flames emerging from the Tower, this version of the card depicts with quite sophisticated ambiguity, for especially the original seems to suggest a pelican/phoenix, a tiny little bit lost on the greater cleanliness of Flornoy’s lines. One last small point is that the top left-hand ‘ball’ is virtually on the border in the original, though accurately proportionally situated in the reproduction, further to the right. This, as a result of a small change in the way in which the ‘sliding’ portion of the Tower’s top is drawn between the two cards.

• LL Bateleur

On this card, the item to the right of the card on the table – often described as a bag, has far more a book-like appearance on the original than on Flornoy’s reproduction (which nonetheless also keeps the ambiguity). The ‘cups’ are also more curved like in the originals, and, perhaps most obviously, the table leg to the left of the card has three lines drawn roughly vertically on the original, depicting, by this, a ‘standard’ squarish prismic aspect, whereas Flornoy’s has the two outer verticals, with internal diagonals, giving an ambiguity as to whether the leg is cylindrical or prismic. Finally, by the figure’s chin’s ‘corner’ being drawn within his neck line on the original, but outside it on the Flornoy, it gives the impression that the original looks a little more downwards than on Flornoy’s copy.
_____
For the Dodal, let me comment on again three cards, The Bateleur, La Pances and the Imperatris – but I’ll try and be more concise.

• Le Bateleur

Here the three ‘obvious’ differences are that the ambiguous ‘book’ between his right leg and the left-hand table leg has become far more difficult to possibly see as a book – the original has a curvature at its middle ‘binding’ which is lost. Also, the cups in the original have a certain sense of curvature (especially the more distant one) which is quite rectilinear in the reproduction. His right hand (the one ‘touching’ the table) is also far more refined in Flornoy’s depiction.

With the Dodal reproduction, many of the titles are not carefully reproduced – in the sense that if there was any geometrical significance to the positioning of the letters to the overall pattern, these would not be able to be ascertained. The Bateleur is one of the most obvious examples, and will not repeat the comment for other cards. In the original, the ‘A’ is directly below the table’s middle leg, whereas on Flornoy’s, it is the next letter, the ‘T’.

• La Pances

Here I am grateful for the reproduction, for Flornoy must have carefully looked at the original to ascertain that the black spot on her cheek must be not a mole/beauty spot, but a later mark on the card’s ageing process – for I am sure that he otherwise would have included such an obvious marking.

The ‘book’, which could, on this card, also be seen as a weaving frame/loom, and the connection from the left side of this to her cloak is more prominent in the original: as if, in the original, there is a long thread which coils around the part of the ‘book’ closest to us and continues, uninterrupted, up towards her heart. This detail has been sufficiently altered as to nearly loose this possible way of seeing it.

The small section – above the final ‘S’ and dot, seems to finish with some details not included in the reproduction. Finally, the top left hand fold has been sufficiently narrowed in the reproduction as to give it a tightness where the original gives it a loose-type feeling.

• Imperatris

Here, the ‘hand’ upon the shield has far more pointed fingers, far more curved petal-like blue forms midway up the column on the right-hand side of the card, and a more ‘sloping’ floor due to the peculiar angular depiction on the bottom right-hand side on the original than on Flornoy’s reproduction. Significantly, however, the original also includes a series of triangular markings upon her curved ‘collar’ (also mentioned, incidentally, as significant by Marteau) which are altogether missing on Flornoy’s copy.
__________

It may seem from what I have said that these are major alterations, they are not. In fact, I can easily be accused of being too meticulously pedantic in details which takes a bit to note, and that is totally inevitable in any non-photographic reproduction. It is not a criticism of Flornoy’s wonderful contribution which really should form part of anyone’s set of Marseille decks. On the contrary, it is because I also valued his work that I tried to see and compare them to whatever e.version I could get of the originals. Being located virtually on the opposite side of the globe to where the originals are kept, it makes for difficulties in getting a first hand impression. The reason I wanted to do this, however, is to see the cards afresh and see if any details could be seen in other ways than the standardised current views. My comments in the individual threads on these cards, such as the loom or spindle on the Papess card(s), or the sandals (had I mentioned that yet?) at the bottom of la Maison Dieu (which lends further credence to some of my other comments), or the book upon the Bateleur’s table in the Noblet, are all such examples. At times, however, a reproduction, no matter how accurate, will loose a particular ambiguity if it is not also perceived as such by the artist (eg, the Crown/Flames upon the Tower mentioned above).

This is a longish post, and presume that my pedantry as to the decks’ iconography will only annoy some – please, if that’s the case, skip this post

[Le_Corsair]

Originally posted by jmd


This is a longish post, and presume that my pedantry as to the decks’ iconography will only annoy some – please, if that’s the case, skip this post

JMD - - If that had been your intent, why did you put the disclaimer at the bottom of the post instead of the top?

Bob

[jmd]

'cause I wasn't sure if some, seeing the length, wouldn't first read the last line...

...ohhh please believe me

[full deck]

I would also like to know more about how he applies the three layers of varnish to his decks; is this by some older technique or done by the printer (automated), for example.

[Flornoy]

Originally posted by full deck
I would also like to know more about how he applies the three layers of varnish to his decks; is this by some older technique or done by the printer (automated), for example.

Excusez-moi, mais Rox n'a pas le temps de tout traduire. Les vernis sont mis à la machine, autrefois, les cartes étaient savonnées.

Alors, que faire aujourd'hui ?


Mes vernis sont écologiques, c'est la seule chose que mon imprimeur puisse me dire et la seule chose que je puisse faire aujourd'hui..

amitiés
JC Flornoy

[Flornoy]

Originally posted by jmd
In various other threads, I have made some passing remarks regarding Flornoy's reproductions. As the Flornoys are also now posting here, and given some correspondence we have had, I thought I would be quite specific.

Please note that I highly value his reproductions, which may be viewed at LeTarot.com.


So... having made a small remark in another post which mentions that Jean-Claude Flornoy’s hand-drawn reproductions bear some minor alterations in detail, I'd better elaborate. This is of course inevitable, yet they are remarkable for, also, their careful meticulousness. But let me point out some of the minor alterations I noted as I compared them – I do not, at this stage, have access to a full set of photographic electronic/digital reproductions the BN held originals, so only comment on some of these.

With both decks, the most ‘obvious’ is the apparent disparities of proportion. Minute, yet significant enough for instant recognition. Flornoy’s Noblet is more ‘squashed’ than the original, and his Dodal more elongated. These are very small proportional differences, but, as I said, significant to (at least my) naked eyes to notice.

Overall, his work has a rectilinearity to it absent in the originals. At first, I thought this may have been simply due to the careful and precise way in which the Flornoys filled the spaces with colour, as opposed to the more haphazard, and faded, blending which is evident in the cards now centuries old. Another aspect is the difference in font – though apparently irrelevant, certain letters may bear a particular relation to certain other parts which, in the reproduction, cannot thus be checked (I’ll mention an example below).

Let me, however, mention just few cards from each deck.

Firstly the Noblet – for which I’ll point out only three cards, Justice, La maison Dieu and the Bateleur.

• Justice

Justice’s ‘necklace’ on the original has marks on it which are curved on the original, but everyone straight on the reproduction. The difference gives the impression that whereas on the original it seems that what she wears is rope-like (or curved cylindrical). The portion of red above her elbow on the right hand side of the card is without woodcut lines on the original (running roughly vertically), but is without any such lines on the reproduction. The original, with the lines, gives it the appearance of a semi-curved wing, the yellow section being the underwing, the reddish section the outer part. This is further accentuated by the mild (vertical) curve found on the original which becomes very rectilinear on Flornoy’s.

• La Maison Dieu

My e.version of this card is quite poor – the lower half being relatively out of focus. The upper half, however, has some smaller differences which may have important ramifications. For example, the reddish brick above the two arched windows extends, in the original, to about the width of the right-hand arch, whereas on Flornoy’s it is evened out equally near the top of each arch.

More significantly, however, the colour used in the original for both the top of the ‘crown’ and the exhuming ‘flames’ are the same, whereas Flornoy makes the crown golden. In the original, the ‘crown’ has flame-like ambiguous qualities, with even the two most top ‘points’ curving upwards like flames – these are rectilinear in the reproduction.

Of the flames emerging from the Tower, this version of the card depicts with quite sophisticated ambiguity, for especially the original seems to suggest a pelican/phoenix, a tiny little bit lost on the greater cleanliness of Flornoy’s lines. One last small point is that the top left-hand ‘ball’ is virtually on the border in the original, though accurately proportionally situated in the reproduction, further to the right. This, as a result of a small change in the way in which the ‘sliding’ portion of the Tower’s top is drawn between the two cards.

• LL Bateleur

On this card, the item to the right of the card on the table – often described as a bag, has far more a book-like appearance on the original than on Flornoy’s reproduction (which nonetheless also keeps the ambiguity). The ‘cups’ are also more curved like in the originals, and, perhaps most obviously, the table leg to the left of the card has three lines drawn roughly vertically on the original, depicting, by this, a ‘standard’ squarish prismic aspect, whereas Flornoy’s has the two outer verticals, with internal diagonals, giving an ambiguity as to whether the leg is cylindrical or prismic. Finally, by the figure’s chin’s ‘corner’ being drawn within his neck line on the original, but outside it on the Flornoy, it gives the impression that the original looks a little more downwards than on Flornoy’s copy.
_____
For the Dodal, let me comment on again three cards, The Bateleur, La Pances and the Imperatris – but I’ll try and be more concise.

• Le Bateleur

Here the three ‘obvious’ differences are that the ambiguous ‘book’ between his right leg and the left-hand table leg has become far more difficult to possibly see as a book – the original has a curvature at its middle ‘binding’ which is lost. Also, the cups in the original have a certain sense of curvature (especially the more distant one) which is quite rectilinear in the reproduction. His right hand (the one ‘touching’ the table) is also far more refined in Flornoy’s depiction.

With the Dodal reproduction, many of the titles are not carefully reproduced – in the sense that if there was any geometrical significance to the positioning of the letters to the overall pattern, these would not be able to be ascertained. The Bateleur is one of the most obvious examples, and will not repeat the comment for other cards. In the original, the ‘A’ is directly below the table’s middle leg, whereas on Flornoy’s, it is the next letter, the ‘T’.

• La Pances

Here I am grateful for the reproduction, for Flornoy must have carefully looked at the original to ascertain that the black spot on her cheek must be not a mole/beauty spot, but a later mark on the card’s ageing process – for I am sure that he otherwise would have included such an obvious marking.

The ‘book’, which could, on this card, also be seen as a weaving frame/loom, and the connection from the left side of this to her cloak is more prominent in the original: as if, in the original, there is a long thread which coils around the part of the ‘book’ closest to us and continues, uninterrupted, up towards her heart. This detail has been sufficiently altered as to nearly loose this possible way of seeing it.

The small section – above the final ‘S’ and dot, seems to finish with some details not included in the reproduction. Finally, the top left hand fold has been sufficiently narrowed in the reproduction as to give it a tightness where the original gives it a loose-type feeling.

• Imperatris

Here, the ‘hand’ upon the shield has far more pointed fingers, far more curved petal-like blue forms midway up the column on the right-hand side of the card, and a more ‘sloping’ floor due to the peculiar angular depiction on the bottom right-hand side on the original than on Flornoy’s reproduction. Significantly, however, the original also includes a series of triangular markings upon her curved ‘collar’ (also mentioned, incidentally, as significant by Marteau) which are altogether missing on Flornoy’s copy.
__________

It may seem from what I have said that these are major alterations, they are not. In fact, I can easily be accused of being too meticulously pedantic in details which takes a bit to note, and that is totally inevitable in any non-photographic reproduction. It is not a criticism of Flornoy’s wonderful contribution which really should form part of anyone’s set of Marseille decks. On the contrary, it is because I also valued his work that I tried to see and compare them to whatever e.version I could get of the originals. Being located virtually on the opposite side of the globe to where the originals are kept, it makes for difficulties in getting a first hand impression. The reason I wanted to do this, however, is to see the cards afresh and see if any details could be seen in other ways than the standardised current views. My comments in the individual threads on these cards, such as the loom or spindle on the Papess card(s), or the sandals (had I mentioned that yet?) at the bottom of la Maison Dieu (which lends further credence to some of my other comments), or the book upon the Bateleur’s table in the Noblet, are all such examples. At times, however, a reproduction, no matter how accurate, will loose a particular ambiguity if it is not also perceived as such by the artist (eg, the Crown/Flames upon the Tower mentioned above).

This is a longish post, and presume that my pedantry as to the decks’ iconography will only annoy some – please, if that’s the case, skip this post

Merci Jean Michel, je prépare des extraits de détails pour examiner tes remarques. Je fais une page web et la met en ligne dès que possible.

amitiés
JC Flornoy

[jmd]

A quick translation:

• Please excuse me, Rox[anne] doesn't have the chance to translate. The varnishes are machine applied [I'm not sure what this implies. jmd]. Yesteryear, the cards were soaped ['savonées' is literally 'applied with soap' or foamed or lathered].
  
  So, what to do today?
  
  My varnishes are ecological [organic/natural?], it is the only thing my printer can tell me and the only thing I can do at this stage ['aujourd'hui' is literally 'today']
  
  regards
  JC Flornoy

[full deck]

Originally posted by Flornoy
Excusez-moi, mais Rox n'a pas le temps de tout traduire. . .

Cela n'importe pas. Je peux traduire assez bien. :o)

[Rusty Neon]

Jean-Claude,

It would be wonderful if there could be mass-market versions of your three reproduction decks - Noblet, Dodal and Conver - with minor arcana as well as major arcana. It truly would be a major contribution towards the study and furtherance of the Tarot de Marseille tradition. I confess that I haven't yet purchased any of your majors-only decks, as the minor arcana are an important part of the deck for me.

[Flornoy]

Originally posted by Rusty Neon
Jean-Claude,

It would be wonderful if there could be mass-market versions of your three reproduction decks - Noblet, Dodal and Conver - with minor arcana as well as major arcana. It truly would be a major contribution towards the study and furtherance of the Tarot de Marseille tradition. I confess that I haven't yet purchased any of your majors-only decks, as the minor arcana are an important part of the deck for me.

Greetings Rusty
Yes a mass edition would be fine - and the only way to produce an entire deck: the work to prepare the minor arcana would take about a year, and producing them as I do now, stencil coloring by hand, would render the deck much too expensive. So I need an editor. I sent sample decks and a proposition to US Games, but Mr Kaplan didn't even bother to reply. Grimaud has its own "authentic" Tarot of Marseilles, and so sees no interest in generating "in-house" competition. Card-editing is a special branch of activity for paper merchants, and it seems that only giants survive in the business. Should there exist a motivated editor, I'd love to know about him. Best wishes, JC