TdM I and TdM II

[le pendu]

I've heard these mentioned a few times, and am not sure where the titles come from and who coined them?

Kenji mentions them in this thread:
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread...ight=Madeni%E9

Ross in this thread:
http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.p...8&postcount=43
where he says the "Madenié, because it is the earliest exemplar of a certain kind of TdM (Depaulis' "TdM I", which he considers the earliest family of TdMs)."

In a email conversation with Michael J Hurst, he mentioned the phrases as well, and indicated that the Noblet was a "TdM I".

Can any anyone shed light on who invented the convention and what defines the two types... which decks fall under which heading?

Thanks,
robert

[Sophie]

I'd like to know too. From conversations with jmd and you, Robert, and from personal observations, I was under the impression that there were more than two!

[whipsilk]

I refer you to Tom Tadfor Little's excellent The Hermitage especially http://www.tarothermit.com/lineage.htm, in which he references Michael Dummett's The Game of Tarot and divides early decks into three broad divisions:
I. Western Tradition - which includes the Visconti decks, most standard "Marseilles" style decks, and Belgian decks
II. Eastern Tradition - from Ferrara and Venice
III. Southern Tradition - Bolognese, Florentine (including the Minchiate decks), and Sicilian

In the "Marseilles Family" (a subcategory of I), there are four broad divisions:
A. Tarot de Marseille
B. Tarot de Besancon
C. Piedmontese Tarot
D. Belgian Tarot
I would tend to guess that TdM I, etc., refer to the lettered categories above rather than the numbered (no one could call a Visconti or Minchiate deck a TdM variant by any stretch of the imagination). That's my guess, anyway.

On another page (http://www.tarothermit.com/decks.htm he lists "Currently Available Historical Decks", broken down into the above categories, sadly now somewhat out of date and incomplete, but still a useful resource.

[le pendu]

Hi whipsilk,

Thanks for the links, I agree that Tom's pages are among the very best there are.

I'm aware of the Western, Eastern, Southern break outs which are related to Dummett's A-B-C.

I don't believe that the "TdM I" and "TdM II" classifications are the subdivisions that you mention.. TdM, TdB etc... but something else. I suspect that the TdM I and II are references to styles of TdM.. which I might guess are of the Noblet/Dodal/Payen style and the Madenié/Chosson/Conver style.. but am not positive.

I'm not sure if these additional categories were originally from Dummett or Depaulis or some other source, and I'm not sure how they are broken out.. therefore my original question.

best,
robert

Edited to add: (but of course, you might be entirely correct about this!)

[whipsilk]

Originally Posted by le pendu

Edited to add: (but of course, you might be entirely correct about this!)

Heh, it's likely that I'm not. I'm definitely no expert, my interest in historical tarot being exactly three weeks old.

So I'll look for a definitive answer just like everyone else...

[Fulgour]

Originally Posted by whipsilk

...sadly now somewhat out of date and incomplete,
but still a useful resource.

I have found in many such cases the "scholarship of the times"
paused, even halted, upon the sorrowful loss of Brian Williams.

[Ross G Caldwell]

Originally Posted by le pendu

I've heard these mentioned a few times, and am not sure where the titles come from and who coined them?

Ross in this thread:
http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.p...8&postcount=43
where he says the "Madenié, because it is the earliest exemplar of a certain kind of TdM (Depaulis' "TdM I", which he considers the earliest family of TdMs)."

Can any anyone shed light on who invented the convention and what defines the two types... which decks fall under which heading?

Sorry, I made a mistake here.

Depaulis puts Madenié as the earliest of "Type II", followed by Conver, unless Chosson really is earlier, despite the confusion in the dating (it could be read "1672", but the "6" is not clear, so it could be as late as 1762, when Chossons are attested).

So attestation of Type II is possibly -

(1, 3) Chosson
(1,2) Madenié
(2,3) Conver
Bourlion
Tourcaty
(etc.)

He distinguishes the TdM style into two types according to imagery, which I will post next.

I don't think Tadfor Little's or Hurst's typologies are the same.

[Ross G Caldwell]

The two types of tarots "de Marseille".

This is a translation of part of Thierry Depaulis' review of Kaplan' Encyclopedia of Tarot, vol. II ("Notes de lecture", L'As de Trèfle, déc. 1986, p. 11), where he explains his insights regarding the two main branches of the TdM style.

Square brackets ([...]) are additions of TD when he sent this excerpt to me.

Far from being tiresome, the multitude of tarots "de Marseille" which follow permits the distinguishing of two groups. The first is characterized by a Cupid without hair, going towards the left, eyes blindfolded (Atout no. VI, l'Amoureux); a Devil whose stomach has a human face on card no. XV; the Moon (no. XVIII) shows a face; on the World no. XXI, a feminine figure dressed in a loincloth and cape. [and the two figures on the Sun are an adult male and female, barely wearing a sort of loincloth, while in Type II they are two infants of indeterminable sex. Finally, the Fool is named LE FOL, while in Type II, he is named LE MAT.]

The second type sees Cupid going to the right; he no longer has blindfolded eyes and his hair is curly. The Diable has a smooth belly, la Lune is in profile and the feminine figure is only clothed with a scarf and her left leg is bent.

The first type has some chance of being older: the solitary card of the World from the Castello Sforzesco, which is dated to the 16th century, shows the same feminine figure; the tarots of Jean Noblet (c. 1650 [c. 1660]), Jean-Pierre Payen (1713), Jean Dodal (c. 1715 [c. 1705]), Jean Payen (1743) are clear examples of this type. More unexpectedly, those of Cosmo Antonio Toso (Genoa, c. 1770?) and even Gummpenberg (Milan, end of the 18th century, of 'Milanese' type then current [cf. also Mann 1990, no. 205] are witness to the permanence of the model.

Finally, it becomes evident that the variant 'de Besançon', nearly to the smallest detail, comes from this Type I: the same Amoureux, the same Lune and the same Monde; on the other hand the Diable appears with a hairy body (Benoist and Carey at Strasbourg, Jerger and his successors at Besançon). It is interesting to compare the two tarots of François Heri, from Soleure, one undated (first half of 18th century), of Type I, but with Junon and Jupiter (it is certainly the first of the genre), the other, dated 1718, of Type II!

To this second Type belong the tarots of François Chosson (1672? [1762?]), Pierre Madenié (Dijon, 1709: finally recovered in its entirety), a number of Swiss tarots and classic tarots de Marseille (Conver, Bourlion, Tourcaty, etc.). Of course, there are those little pests who have mixed the two and with whom one finds a Lovers of Type II and a Devil of Type I... [see also D. Hoffmann, in Tarot, Tarock, Tarocchi, Leinfelden-Echterdingen, 1988, p. 11-12: 'Die Familie des Marseiller Tarock']

[Later addition:

TdM Type I is represented earlier than Type II; it is found at Lyon, Grenoble, Avignon; it disappeared after 1750, not before having engendered the 'Lombard' and 'Besançon' tarots. Some variants of the TdM Type II exist: a mixed form, combining Type I and Type II (M-I/II), a Type II with the Fool named LE FOL (M-IIa) and a Type II 'Genoan' with the Pendu in profile.

Type II is only known after 1700; it is found at Dijon, Besançon, in Switzerland, then at Marseille in the second half of the 18th century; it survived alone, or nearly, after 1800. According to D. Hoffmann, the Piedmontese Tarot (cf. for example that by Lando) comes from the TdM Type II (Hoffmann/Dietrich 1988, p. 12). The TdM Type II seems to be a "calmed", "humanised" version of TdM Type I: the Devil is less frightening, the feminine figure of the World is more feminine, that is, more "sexy" in regards to her hips and breasts (whereas the the corresponding figure in Type I is more "austere", less feminine). Briefly, the TdM Type II appears to me to be a "modernisation" of TdM Type I. Is it the work of Lyonnais cardmaker? of a Dijonnais? And how to explain its success in Marseille?]

So according to this typology (which I find sensible):

Type I -

Noblet
J-P Payen
Dodal
J Payen
(and late 18th and 19th century Genoese and Milanese tarots)

Type II -

Chosson
Madenié
Conver
(some Swiss tarots and other tarots de Marseille)

Ross

[Ross G Caldwell]

Originally Posted by le pendu

I don't believe that the "TdM I" and "TdM II" classifications are the subdivisions that you mention.. TdM, TdB etc... but something else. I suspect that the TdM I and II are references to styles of TdM.. which I might guess are of the Noblet/Dodal/Payen style and the Madenié/Chosson/Conver style.. but am not positive.

You were exactly right!

I'm not sure if these additional categories were originally from Dummett or Depaulis or some other source, and I'm not sure how they are broken out.. therefore my original question.

I would cite the idea as Depaulis, first published in 1986. His typology was then given wider circulation (L'As de Trèfle has a very small circulation) by Detleff Hoffmann in 1988 [edited to add - and now a very much wider circulation by me!]

Ross

[le pendu]

Hi Ross,

Thanks so much for the info and translation.

I had pretty much come to the same conclusions from studying the cards, and could name many more differences between the two styles (the canopy on the chariot, the hands on the hanged man, the crossier on the pope... etc).

It was in a discussion with Michael about these differences that he mentioned TdM I and II, but wasn't sure where it came from. He basically said that my conclusions were the same, and indicated that Noblet was an example of TdM I. So in my mind I had pretty much set up the differences between the two. Then with your post indicating the Madenié as TdM I, I thought that I had something wrong! Thanks for correcting that and for providing so much information, I agree with all of Depaulis' thoughts on this (I'm sure he is relieved to hear that... hee hee).

An interesting point is his early dating of the Sforza Castle World card to the 1500s, which I completely agree with given the lack of title and the clarity of the card. That's the earliest dating I have seen.

Another interesting point he makes are the Heri cards. I'm fascinated with Heri's TdM I style deck (with replaced Juno and Jupiter to become a TdB, page 318 of Kaplan II). It is the only other deck I know of with similar dimensions as the Noblet. While it certainly has many TdB characteristics (the Hermit, the Devil), the similarities to Noblet are very striking. It's interesting to see some of the minor details on this deck like the eagle on the chair of the the Emperor. I wonder if this is a detail lost in the Noblet, or added in the Heri?

I'm confused about his dating of the Payens.... and this really is something I think you know a lot about. I would have thought the Jean Payen was older than the Jean-Pierre Payen?? Are we sure about the datings of these decks?

best,
robert