Knight/Cavalier of Batons - Contrasting the Dodal and Conver

[le pendu]

The Knight of Batons may be one of the most insightful cards in the deck when comparing the Dodal and the Conver, and really calls for a comparison of other early decks to try to determine what is actually depicted on the card.

(As usual, the images are also presented adjacent each other on the ATS site.)

<-- Dodal | Conver -->

Looking at the top half of the card, both decks are pretty similar. They show a Knight looking off at a club he holds in his left hand. He wears a wide brimmed hat, sits in a saddle, and his horse is turned to look at the Baton as well.

But on the bottom half of the card, there seems to be "confusion" on the part of both Dodal and Conver as to what is depicted:

Near the rear of the horse, both seem to indicate some sort of flowing drapery.

As often is the case, Conver has a lower ground point than Dodal. Dodal has the ground go all the way up to under the horse. Both indicate a flower shape on the back of the knee.

But what is happening with the horse's feet?

Conver seems, to my eye, to clearly show two feet, one back and one front.

On Dodal, it is hard to say at all. It looks like there may be two front feet... one on the ground where you can see the hoof touching the border, and one raised, but it is very poorly rendered if there at all.

Dodal has also added "F.P Le Trenge"... "fait pour l'etranger", "made for foreign lands", indicating the probability that his deck is designed specifically for export. Unfortunately, this addition may cut off additional information, perhaps even the bottom back feet?

Dodal seems very confused generally about the front of the horse, the shapes are large and undetailed, and make little sense.

Conver seems to imply that a draping hangs not only off the back of the horse, but skirts around the horse, covering his middle and front as well as his back.

Is it possible that neither artist knew what the front of the horse should look like?

Do you feel that either of them were successful in clearly showing the details of image?

I'll add more cards from other decks soon, and perhaps we can see some patterns as to how other portrayed the bottom half of this card.

Are there additional details about the Conver or the Dodal worth noting?

 

[Lillie]

None of the front of the horse on the Dodal makes sense to me.
But is that a back hoof just peeping out above the E?

Also, what is the round red thing in the bottom left?

And the dark thing, next to the knights foot, on the Conver?

Very curious.

I have followed the last two of these comparison threads with fascination, although I know very little about these early decks.

Also, I like the face on the Dodal more than the Conver. It seems a nicer face somehow.

 

[jmd]

Striking similarities!

I tend to agree with Lillie that the back hoof seems to be just above that 'E' on the Dodal - this is probably even clearer in the cognate Payen decks:

<-- J. Payen | J-P Payen -->

I must admit that what I also find fascinating with this card is also the relative apparent consistancy of what can be seen a little like a 'winged' dragon on his 'armour' facing us.

I am hopeful that Robert will also discuss his views about what appears to missing from each of those four decks... a detail that is, he has convinced me, of major 'natural' importance if one is going to be a chevalier.

Notice also the difference of title between the Payen/Dodal and the Conver: whereas the Dodal and Payen decks have 'Chevalier', the Conver has 'Cavalier'. Of course, each have etymological connections, and in any case do not want to make too much of titles that appear to have no place on earliest decks.

 

[le pendu]

But is that a back hoof just peeping out above the E?

Also, what is the round red thing in the bottom left?

And the dark thing, next to the knights foot, on the Conver?

Good catch Lillie, and I think the Payen images show pretty clearly that it is indeed a hoof there. I wonder if the Payen images are showing an upturned front hoof as well, although the lines are very thick if they are.

As to your other two questions, I'm not sure either! Looks like Payen has ground at the very front where Dodal has the circle, so maybe it is just more of Dodal drawing strangely?

best,
robert

 

[le pendu]

Adding in the Jacques Vieville, a TdM-related deck from around 1650, about 150 years earlier than the Conver, Dodal or Payen.

The Knight is "reversed" as many of the Vieville images are to traditional TdM imagery.

Things to note:
The horse head is turned towards the baton, but the knights is not.
The rider wears spurs.
There are decorative items hanging off the back of the horse.
There is a large feather attached to the head of the horse.
Both of the front feet are off the ground!
The kneeplate of the knight has a flower design on it.
The hat is very different.
The baton is more of a straight stick than a club.

 

[le pendu]

Here is the Knight from the J.B. Benois Tarot, a Tarot of Besançon probably contemporary to the Dodal and Conver.

As we saw in the King of Batons, the Besançon decks tend to share a lot of the iconography with the Dodal, but here there are a some striking differences as well.

Things to note:
The horse head looks very odd to me.. out of proportion to the rest of the body, and is facing forward, not towards the baton.

The cloth is on the back is more clearly rendered.

The back leg is very clearly rendered.

The front feet are also clear, with one raised off the ground. I personally suspect the same is true in the Dodal and Payen decks.

The flower is behind the knee, like on the Dodal and Conver.

 

[Lillie]

I wondered about the flower by the knee.

On the first two I thought it was on the knight himself, and wondered if it was indicative of a garter or something like that.

But the Veiville shows it as part of the horses fixtures and fittings.
The knight on this one does, however, have a flower on the knee cap of his armour.

Would a flower in this position have any significance in the time these cards were made?

The Veivile haircut and hat have a very early look about them.
I can't place it exactly, but pre Tudor (in England), which would be before 1500. I suppose continental fashions were relativley similar.
I'm not a historic costume expert at all, but I recognise it from TV programs and suchlike.

 

[prudence]

Not sure exactly which element lends itself to this reflection, but does anyone else see the Knight from the Vieville as Asian, in comparison to the others? Perhaps it is the hat, and the haircut. The ornamentation on the horse's saddle seems to strike me this way as well.

My favorite expressions are those in the Dodal, I love the almost smug look on the horse's face, his eyebrow raised as if to say "I beg your pardon?"

 

[jmd]

I agree that the Vieville has an asian-like quality or characteristic - and some other cards show this even more so, to my eyes at any rate.

I am not sure that the flower on the knee itself has a significance per se, but it certainly suggests that here is where there needs to be substantial movement. The Noblet Knight, by the way, has not so much a flower as what looks like soft-cloth (though the image is simply not clear on this point).

The Noblet does appear to be a basis for the Payen, Dodal and Conver decks - or at least, each draws from the same image, and the spurs are 'missing' in each - unlike the Vieville that still shows them.

Of interest with this image is the card found at the Sforza Castle (Robert and I often refer to this deck as the SC deck - even though but too few images, and perhaps from different decks, remain):

Sforza Castle card​

Here we have what appears to be the same basic pattern in terms of the representation of the horse, including one of the forelegs raised, and its head facing back towards the baston, that itself appears to have a 'growth' or cut both to the left and to the right (unlike the Besançon earlier shown).

Of central difference here is that the saddle, that Astrid O points to in its importance in terms of details from the Vieville, appears here to be no more than a blanket.

Also, this SC card has the cavalier's foot facing the opposite way to all cards so far shown - but forms the basis for many other Italianate decks.

The rider's facial direction is also front-on towards the viewer, forming what appears to be a half-way point between the representation on the Vieville and the Payen-Dodal and Conver.

 

[firemaiden]

Would it be of any use to contrast this knight I just saw in the Cary Collection - on the Yale site - this knight comes from "The Austria Sheet" - whatever that is. There is a date on the horse - 1538