« Tarot History Forum | Main | The Most Beautiful Deck in the World? »
Clouds above the Lovers
By robert | April 9, 2008
I think there’s something wrong with the Lovers card in the Marseille Tarots.
I’ve mentioned it before elsewhere, but I think it’s worth bringing up again. Let’s take a look at the Lovers card from the Jean Noblet Tarot, (Paris, 1650):
Notice the area that contains the cupid? The shape of this area has always bothered me. It seems erratically drawn, why isn’t the shape more circular or evenly distributed?
We find a similar design on the Jean Dodal Tarot, (Lyon, early 1700s):
The Dodal strikes me as less odd, but still somewhat strange.
I would have left it at this, but noticed something very interesting one day when examining a set of cards illustrated in Kaplan’s Encyclopedia of Tarot, Volume II.
The deck that caught my eye was one created by François Heri, a Tarot of Besançon style deck (where the Pope and Popess are replaced with Jupiter and Juno). Like the Jean Dodal Tarot, it was created sometime in the early 1700s. This deck is particularly interesting because it is the only deck I have ever encountered which is similar in proportion to the Jean Noblet Tarot. The deck is shorter and wider in proportion to other Besançon decks just as the Noblet shows the same relationship to other Marseille tarots. The two are obviously related somehow. There are little differences on nearly every card, most of these of a typical Besançon style; (as an example, the Devil is slightly different than in Marseille Tarots, he has hairy legs and his minions are shown in profile).
Because the Heri and the Noblet are so similar, I find it very exciting to compare where they “agree” iconographically, and where they differ. Unfortunately, I’ve only the enlarged black and white images from the Encyclopedia to use for comparison; but it is the best that I have at this time to work with. It was in such a comparison that I first noticed a striking difference between the Heri and the Noblet on the Lovers. The Heri has clouds about the Lovers.
For me, the Heri depiction makes much more sense.
And that’s odd because in almost every way, the Heri is a generally cruder. Why would Heri add the clouds?
Perhaps the answer is that the clouds are just a typical detail that appears in the Besançon decks, but not in the Marseille decks? It’s true they do appear on other Besançon decks. Here for example is the Marseille Tarot by Jean Dodal, and the Besançon Tarot by J.B. Benois:
Notice how poorly the wings of the cupid are drawn on the Jean Dodal; and also the way the upper leg is disconnected from the body? Even though the Jean Dodal is the older of the pair, again I feel that the Besançon Tarot makes more “sense”. It’s interesting as well to note that both the Heri and the Benois Besançon Tarots follow the same “TdM I” style exemplified by Noblet and Dodal. Even the character’s feet which are missing from the Dodal are also missing on the Benois.
The “TdM II” style associated with the François Chosson and Nicholas Conver portrays the Lovers card very differently. Here is the François Chosson:
Here the Cupid is reversed and without a blindfold, the feel is entirely different.
I’m not sure what to make of this. I’m inclined to think that the card “should” have the clouds on it. The depiction in the Besançon Tarots makes more “visual sense” to me than their cousins in the Marseille Tarots.
To be fair, it’s very possible that when the Besançon style was first being developed, a cardmaker also felt that the cupid could be improved and redesigned the Marseille card to have the clouds.
I’m not so sure though.
I’m more inclined to think that the Besançon Tarots “retain” a feature that probably existed in early Marseille decks, but was “lost” in the Marseille “bloodline” by the time of the Noblet.
There is another possibility that I have been considering ever since I first noticed this years ago. Is it possible that the Noblet and the Dodal are actually modified Besançon Tarots, adapted to meet the style of the Marseille? Is the “TdM I” really a modified Besancon to take on traits of the “TdM II”? I think it unlikely, but worth mentioning.
What do you think? Are there clouds above the Lovers?
Feel free to comment here, or join a discussion on the topic in the Tarot History Forum.
Topics: Besançon Tarot, François Chosson, Jean Dodal Tarot, Jean Noblet Tarot, Marseille Tarot, Nicholas Conver Tarot |
April 9th, 2008 at 6:07 am
Hi,
I wanted to point out that although it is popular to call this card “The Lovers” in English in accord with the 20th century decks, in fact the name of this card “L’Amoureux” is singular, and should be translated “The Lover”.
This may explain why the Dodal lacks an “x” at the end, but in any case it is not a an “x” indicating a plural noun such as in “tableaux”, but rather the masculine adjective “amorous”. The feminine would be “L’amoureuse”.
If anyone knows when this translation error originally occurred, I would very much like to know.
At any rate, when discussing the TdM and other french decks, I believe it is important that we stick to the accurate names when dealing with the french decks.
As for whether it is a cloud: the oldest TdM known to date, that of François Chosson in 1672, resembles most closely the Conver, where it is clearly not a cloud but rather resembles more a skull.
Symbolically the skull makes more sense as well. It is consistent with the skull motifs in other cards (XIII and XX) and also is complementary with Cupid (dualism of Eros/Thanatos).
April 9th, 2008 at 6:09 am
Oops- left out an important linguistic element.
L’amoureux is thus an adjectival noun meaning “the amorous one”.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:28 am
Hi doublehermes
Thanks for your comments.
The oldest TdM that I know of is the Jean Noblet, 1650. There’s some controversy over whether the Chosson really should be dated to 1672 or actually later, but I’m personally inclined to agree with you and date it to 1672.
Regarding the names, you’re probably right. I tend to discuss so many different decks from different traditions that I tend to use the common names. On top of that, I’ve never paid much attention to the names on the TdM as I tend to think they are a later addition on top of pre-existing images.
I’m not sure that I would agree with a skull making more sense than a cloud, but do appreciate new ideas. I hope you’ll consider joining the forum.
best,
robert
April 9th, 2008 at 6:34 am
I agree with Robert in that the titles are a later addition, and may in any case bear error.
The Zoya, for example, has “Les Amoureux” - which I do not think justifies the title “Lovers” any more than an ‘incorrect’ translation does.
With regards to the skull, it is just plainly incongruous with the depiction and its general context - and is certainly something that appears to be seen more as a justification for a pre-assumed view of the imagery, rather than allowing the image to unveil itself (at least in my opinion).
I’d be interested to read of any reason you may have, doublehermes, for assuming a skull behind the cupid-like figure.
best,
jmd
April 9th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Thanks for mentioning Noblet. I should have said “earliest TdM known to have been made in Marseilles” for the Chosson.
There are a number of reasons why I think it may be a skull, (not the least because my favorite TdMs look to me as if they are shaped purposely that way. Might this be similar to what you mean by allowing the image to unveil itself? ;-))
My understanding is that Judeo-Christian tradition holds it forbidden to depict the face of God, or to look directly at it. (Exodus 33:20 I believe) However, there are two ways to “get around this”: one is to depict an angel and the other a skull.
And, as I mentioned before, I am used to thinking of the Greek gods Eros and Thanatos as two sides of the same being, from my understanding that before he was reassigned the Cupid role as Aphrodite’s son, Eros was a more ancient, more primal life force archetype, in a dualistic pair with death. (I must have read this in something by Jung, have not researched this directly.)
Since so much of the TdM images are dualistic, it seems likely to me that this may be as well.
There is more, but for starters, that’s what I would point to.
regards,
dh
April 11th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I should also explain that I first encountered the idea of the skull in a class taught by Philippe Camoin. He shows how the Tarot can be understood as a complex system of symbolic codes, the cards interrelating with one another.
His English site gives more information, it looks like it has been redone with many new articles. Apparently more is coming soon. This is the link:
http://en.camoin.com
By the way, I could not find a reference to a Zoya deck. Could you tell me more about it?
best,
dh
April 11th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Hi dh,
You might be interested in this site, and the forum there:
http://www.tarot-authentique.com/
Paul, a member here and on Aeclectic, set the site up to talk TdM, and he seems rather an advocate of Camoin and his method. There’s actually been rather a rush of posts on the subject on Aecletic lately.
Zoya? Do you mean the Zoni mentioned in the forum? The Zoni is Giacomo Zoni, 1780, Bologna. Or did I mention Zoya somewhere?
best,
robert
April 11th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
PS.
The Zoni is sold by Lo Scarabeo as “Ancient Tarots of Bologna”, and by Il Meneghello as “Tarocco 78 Carte Bologna XVIII Sec.”
April 13th, 2008 at 6:27 am
Hi Robert and thanks for the link to Paul’s site.
Zoya was mentioned by jmd above.
best,
dh
April 13th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Duh.
I’ll let jmd comment. Sorry!
best,
robert