Universal Tarot

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 26 Jul 2002, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Helruna	26 Jul 2002
Greetings! My hubby and me just returned from downtown, and he "talked" me into buying this deck - Universal Tarot by Maxwell Miller. Now at home, I like the artwork and symbology very much. To be honest, even better than I expected - BUT, I found out that this deck doesn't use Knights! It only consists of 74 cards... Hmm, the main reason the author states for not using them is that he wanted to connect the cards with a more "precise" astrological association, if I understood the basic idea behind the madness, so to say. Also, he says that the number of cards has varied since they were "created"...? Well, my question is - does anyone of you use this deck? What are your experiences with it? What are your thoughts on the "missing knights"? I think, also this is a bit "odd", it might be good for meditation and studies, I have yet to figure out what it might be capable of "doing" in readings... Again, I tried to find an old thread - but darn, I simply am not able to find one (or I overlooked it). Somehow I am not very skilled at finding old threads here... BB, Helruna

jmd	26 Jul 2002
I don't know if this is the same deck which joya250 mentioned a few months ago, but here is the thread. In terms of the Knights not being included, this follows the dropping of these cards in 'standard' playing decks which only have 52 cards (plus Jokers). In Spain, the Knight is usually kept as one of the three courts of each suit. From wanting to make astrological correlations with each sign, dropping one of the courts results, of course, in having a possible one-to-one mapping, as both the number of courts and signs are then twelve. To my eyes, this is another example of modifying the Tarot in order for it to fit with other very important 'systems' - whether this be Kabbalah or Astrology (in which I also have keen interest, by the way). Though this modification is worthy for the sake of the process of deepening one's understanding in possible aspects of the cards (or in the zodiacal signs), the deck remains, as a Tarot deck, incomplete.

Helruna	27 Jul 2002
Thank you for taking the time to dig into the archives, but they seem to be talking about another "Universal" (what a confusion!). I see your point in the Tarot deck being "incomplete". That is what I felt when I saw/realised that it only has 74 cards. The artwork though is very nice, and I like it. I will do some workings with it and see if the "missing" elements/enegeries from the Knights have a great influence or not. It seems to be, from the symbological point of view to be highly interesting to me personally, and might be nice for meditation. :) BB, Helruna

catlin	30 Jul 2002
I also have the M. Universal tarot but I don't use it for readings as I think in a tarot deck the lack of knights disturbing (funny enough, this doesn't bother me when doing readings with playing cards). It is an interesting deck but the artwork does not click with me.

Minderwiz	04 Aug 2002
I'm not sure that the argument of twelve signs therefore twelve court cards is a particularly good one or is helpful. I am studying both Astrology and Tarot and recognise that to a fairly significant extent both draw on the same archetypes. However Tarot is not Astrology and whilst they augment each other I don't really like the idea of forcing the Tarot to be astrological. it's like forcing the Zodiac to have 22 Signs to make it more Tarot like, or even worse using 78 constellations!¬ That being said I do have A T Mann's Mandala Astrological Tarot deck (78 cards and 'proper' assignments) but I don't use it much. I do also draw on my astrological knowledge of the elements when considering suits but I emphasise, 'draw on' not substitute. Minderwiz

The Universal Tarot thread was originally posted on 26 Jul 2002 in the Tarot Decks board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Tarot Decks, or read more archived threads.