Arthurian decks: Hallowquest vs. Legend

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 21 Dec 2004, and now archived in the Forum Library.

northsea	21 Dec 2004
Which do you folks prefer? I like the Hallowquest; the main drawback is there's no cards for Morgan LeFay or the Questing Beast! (So I imagine the Queen of Cups being Morgan LeFay.) The Legend deck has those two, but it forgoes the Hallowquest's beautiful scenic minors for various pictures showing stories from Arthurian myth. Also, neither deck depicts a medieval setting with armored knights (which I prefer); the Hallowquest depicts the setting of the historical Arthur circa 500-600 A.D., and the Legend is more romance-novel than medieval in style. (The Avalon tarot by Lo Scarabeo has more of a medieval flavor, but I haven't been interested in it because some off cards like the Fool card.)

rosyelf	21 Dec 2004
No Morgan le Fay card ? That's outrageous. I haven't got the Hallowquest Tarot but I debate with myself every now and then whether to get it. I read somewhere it was rather left-brained. Is it ? I found that a bit discouraging, as I am much more of a right-brainer. I did have the Legend. And I do like Anne-Marie Ferguson's artwork. Trouble is, it is so detailed I feel that the normal-sized tarot card fails to do it justice. Even a GIANT tarot card may not do it justice. I like her illustrations in Le Morte D'Arthur much better, for this reason. Avalon I glanced at on the scans but didn't warm to. Does anyone have the Merlin ? I bought it years ago because the figure of Merlin fascinates me, but as I remember the deck didn't seem to have much to do with him, oddly. And the pips were terribly dull, and the cards generally looked very washed-out and uninspiring. Sigh. What about the Glastonbury Tarot ? I know it's not JUST Arthurian myth, but of course some myths are in it. I love Glastonbury-the town, the landscape, the VIBE-so it seems perverse not to have the deck, really. I can't decide about those VERY bright colours. Excellent thread. :)

fairyhedgehog	21 Dec 2004
I have the Hallowquest and the Glastonbury. I wanted the Hallowquest for a long time and I love some of the minors. But it isn't really a reading deck (not for me, anyway) and I've found it disappointing for meditation because there are too many cards I don't like. It's a beautiful but lonely deck. I'm sorry I can't compare it with the Legend, cos I don't have that one. The Glastonbury was bought for me as a present. It's very colourful but does nothing for me. I won't part with it though, because of it being a present from my husband.

northsea	21 Dec 2004
Hi rosyelf and fairyhedgehog, I'm not sure if the Hallowquest is left-brained as I don't read with it and don't have the workbook. The minors seem more intuitive than the Legend minors, though. I would like to visit Glastonbury, but being on the other side of the world means it may be awhile. :)

WolfSpirit	21 Dec 2004
I have the Hallowquest, Legend Arthurian, Merlin and Glastonbury :) and still I never consciously collected decks with that theme - there must have been something that attracted me in every one. Although I must admit the Hallowquest was a surrpise, I got it in a trade and I thought I got the Legend Arthurian (which I bought later for myself). Of these decks, I have most used the Glastonbury for readings, I find it very readable thanks to the excellent book. The artwork is inconsistent, some cards are really nice but others are badly drawn with garish colours. But overall, I find it a very sympathetic deck. I recommend it to those who want a deck with positive vibes. I also read with the Legend Arthurian, I found the readings very personal and touching - it is not the best deck for tarot symbolism but, well, I still feel a personal connection with this deck. I also enjoyed reading the book. I haven't used the Hallowquest much, I must admit I haven't read the book yet. The minors seem to have more a natural theme than Arthurian. I have not finished with this deck yet. And the Merlin - that is an odd one, all the renaming and renumbering and the minors not consistent with the artwork. I only just got the book to this deck, and it describes the majors into every detail. I really love the majors in this deck, but it seems the minors were just thrown in to make the deck complete in a hurry. I like the way R.J. Stewart describes the cards though, and he made a tarot system of his own in which the renumbering makes sense - if you like traditional tarot this deck will irritate you. The deck is based on writings about Merlin dating from the 12th century, the book writes about every card how it fits into Merlin's life. I think for all four decks the companion book is important as well.

magpie9	22 Dec 2004
I have the Halloquest Arthurian, the Legend and the Merlin. I read with the Hallowquest, and find it accurate and clear. Love it. And i like that it's based on the early Arthurian times, not the later slide into medieval times. I'm getting to know the Legend, and find it (so far) a very personal deck, with a very different take on the Arthurian Legends. I see it as more fantasy-based, in art and attitude. The Merlin is hard for me to read with in some ways becaues of Stewerts odd system. I've been told he gets his numbering from Oswald Writhe, I dunno. His decks always annoy me, because he always does those dull dull dull pip minors with strange keywords on them, it's like he resents having to include them....and yet there is so much in the Art, and the ideas behind it. I've combined the Majors and courts from his Merlin and Dreampower, with the minors from the Merlin, all into one deck. Big thick deck, very strange, but I like it. However, I'm not really sure what it's good for, yet. edited to adde: I think all these decks would be completely impossible without the companion books. Except for the Merlin, where it seems to me the book gets in the way a lot of the time. RJ Stewert just can't write, IMHO !!

magpie9	22 Dec 2004
There is Morgan le Fay in the Hallowquest, she's the Lady of the Lake card.

WolfSpirit	24 Dec 2004
magpie9 wrote: edited to adde: I think all these decks would be completely impossible without the companion books. Except for the Merlin, where it seems to me the book gets in the way a lot of the time. RJ Stewert just can't write, IMHO !! Ah, I actually quite like his writing, but his sense for tarot...I know RJ Stewart does a lot of workshops on sort of spiritual subjects and celtic knowledge and he made tarot part of his whole spiritual teachings, without much respect for the tarot tradition - he just made up his own system. I know many tarotists hate this, but I guess I have always been attracted to people pushing boundaries }) which does not mean I agree with him - but I do find it interesting so far. Sorry northsea about diverting the discussion away from the Legend and Hallowquest. Hopefully someone else has something to say about these decks :)

RedMaple	28 Dec 2004
I have the Legend, and haven't warmed to it yet, although I do like the way some of the cards connect with the stories. I agree the cards are too small for the artwork. I'd like to see them much bigger and without the grey borders. As for some of the other decks. I can't imagine why some of the strongest women in the stories are not better represented in these decks. Morgan le Fay, Dame Ragnelle, for example, are hugely important and powerful. Even in the Legend deck, Dame Ragnelle is a pip card, which seems outrageous to me -- she is the Land itself, Sovereignty. Without her there is no kingship. Maybe I'll have to come up with my own system, LOL

inanna_tarot	07 Jan 2005
At the moment, I am in love with my Legend deck, bought as a present for christmas and I am still studying it weeks after, which is bloody amazing for me lol. I'm getting so much out of it, the artwork is amazing and for a girl thats just been studying romances and courtly love at uni, this is just the deck for me at this moment. The Hallowquest (from the scans) just seems that little bit too crisp for me. I love the Matthews' and Grey, but the artwork seems to neat. Saying that I will probably end up getting this deck sooner or later but I dont think I'd read with it as much as I do with my Legend. Sezo x

inanna_tarot	07 Jan 2005
The merlin I think is just rubbish. Sorry, but after seeing the deck and liked the majors, the minors were a huge disappointment, and the book, well, others have commented on that lol. Just not my cup of tea at all when theres better decks out there on the same theme. Sezo x

Melpomone18	08 Jan 2005
rosyelf wrote: I did have the Legend. And I do like Anne-Marie Ferguson's artwork. Trouble is, it is so detailed I feel that the normal-sized tarot card fails to do it justice. Even a GIANT tarot card may not do it justice. I like her illustrations in Le Morte D'Arthur much better, for this reason. I couldn't agree with you more, Rosyelf. I have the edition of Le Morte D'Arthur that she illustrated and I based my purchase of the deck on my love for those paintings. Sadly, I found her work just too detailed and subtle for such tiny cards. I keep this deck because of my love for the Legends but I don't get much out of it in readings. The Hallowquest seems an interesting deck, but it is rather disconcerting that there's no Morgan le Fay. What were they thinking?!

magpie9	09 Jan 2005
Melpomone18 wrote: . The Hallowquest seems an interesting deck, but it is rather disconcerting that there's no Morgan le Fay. What were they thinking?! Morgan le fay is in the Hallowquest. she is the Lady of the Lake. really. It says so in all 3 of the Hallowquest companion books.

RedMaple	09 Jan 2005
magpie9 wrote: Morgan le fay is in the Hallowquest. she is the Lady of the Lake. really. It says so in all 3 of the Hallowquest companion books. But the Lady of the Lake and Morgan are not the same, except that they are both connected to the Goddess. They should be two separate cards. I have the Legend, and although at first I was disappointed, I am coming to like it a lot. If you are into the stories, this is the deck to have, in my opinion. I agree that the cards are small -- I'd love to see the details enlarged. But if you take time to study each card, it will be there in your mind, in all its detail, when you need it in a reading. For those interested, there's a study group for the Legend, that's going on now. You might want to check it out.

Cerulean	09 Jan 2005
Some people do like the Welsh and "British" take that the Matthews did to the King Arthur myths, but some people don't like the stretch. I realize those who like the French-based Morte d'Arthur versions would prefer the literal Legends deck. I like the Hallowquest because it gives a scenic take that allows room for the reader to interplay their own thoughts with the Arthurian Tarot. Perhaps because both Caitlin and John Matthews developed their work and oracle decks with the idea of a wider audience, it seems to be more a system than the individual formulation of Legends, which is a product of one artistic and writerly imagination. I still work with the Hallowquest...it's oddly like scenic meditative landscapes that one can interact with in Asian scrolls...the people are small and distant or even one character in the scene or deck is briefly described and named--which to me really encourages the reader to use this as a tool. To me it's like a framework of poetic instruction that shows a structure, but encourages individuals to make their own text... Here's a few links provided in this outline of the Hallowquest: http://www.learntarot.com/hwdesc.htm I hope my note here is clear... Cerulean

Frank Hall	09 Jan 2005
I like very much what Cerulean aptly deems the " scenic meditative landscapes" of the Arthurian Tarot. The landscape artwork is uniformly excellent. The book descriptions bring out symbolic/artistic details and meditative ranges of meaning. The Arthurian and Grail stories come to life through key symbolic themes rather than through plot schemes. This deck really impresses me with its complete picture of the human condition. How esoteric without astrological and Kabbalistic foundations -- who can resist the Grail Maiden and her message?

RedMaple	09 Jan 2005
Cerulean wrote: I still work with the Hallowquest...it's oddly like scenic meditative landscapes that one can interact with in Asian scrolls...the people are small and distant or even one character in the scene or deck is briefly described and named--which to me really encourages the reader to use this as a tool. To me it's like a framework of poetic instruction that shows a structure, but encourages individuals to make their own text... Cerulean I haven't worked with the Hallowquest myself. I don't mean to choose one deck over the other, just to say that I find a lot to work with in the Legends, though it is by no means my perfect deck. I like what you say about the meditative landscapes in the Hallowquest, I've never heard anyone talk about them like that before. It does seem that Matthews concern is a more historical Arthur, rather than the legendary or mythic Arthur, at least from his comments on the film he advised on, and he embraces a theory that says that Arthur was not British or Celtic, but Roman. That would so diminish the story for me -- puts it right into the Dances With Wolves, Last Samurai, etc etc formula -- white western man visits the tribes and becomes great hero. Please! Arthur must remain the son of Igraine and Uther for me.

WalesWoman	10 Jan 2005
I can't say one deck is better than the other, since I haven't seen all of the Hallowquest deck, only have looked at the few sample cards and read a few things about it. So I chose Legends because it came closer to what I felt was more in line with my views of Arthur and the legends, the naming of the Majors and images of the cards themselves. I have to agree, the cards are too small to adequately see everything, so anyone with a scanner can blow them up as big as their montitor or printer allows. I like that option very much, tho' trying to do a reading with 8x10 sheets of paper might be a bit cumbersome. I don't know, it just seems like I can really resonate with this deck and finding fellow members who use this deck and discover and discuss with them their feelings and perceptions of this deck in the Study Groups has added so much more depth to it and been very rewarding.

Maelin	23 Jan 2005
I use the Hallowquest deck - and I looked closely at both it and Legends before making my choice, although I'm sure that eventually I'll give in and buy the other as well! What I like is that the minors don't have people in them. There is a feeling, partially because of the black arch-like border, that you are looking through a doorway into a scene. The story referenced in the scene is not shown directly, only the before - setting the stage for - or the aftermath of what has gone on. The two together felt to me as though they were inviting you in - to go deeper, to ask more - the message seems to be that what you are looking at is only the first layer. For those of us with a scandalously shallow understanding of Arthurian legend - You know, Camelot, the Sword and the Stone! Each card becomes an invitation to read, surf, ask, and then populate the meaning with one's own version of the particular chapter. The deck then becomes the first step in an Arthurian versian of tarot, rather than an end in itself.

RedMaple	24 Jan 2005
Maelin - You and Cerulean are convincing me that I must get the Hallowquest. This really has to stop. :)

Maelin	28 Jan 2005
Red Maple - I actually fear it must stop - I have been trying to get hold of a Hallowquest Deck, to give as a gift , but it appears to be out of print... if anyone has news of whether it is about to be reprinted, or why it has mysteriously disappeared - for goodness sake I bought mine in the Chapters!..???

Cerulean	28 Jan 2005
The Arthurian Tarot (ISBN:0850308437) Matthews, Caitlin & John Price: US$ 18.00 [convert currency] Shipping: [rates and speeds] Book Description: Aquarian Press 1990 UK. Boxed set includes book and tarot deck. Very Good + .: ISBN: 0850308437. Bookseller Inventory #ARC12477 Bookseller: Arcanum Books (Vancouver, BC, Canada) [search this seller's books] [browse this seller's books] [ask bookseller a question] http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=matthews&tn=arthurian+tarot Good luck!

Dark Inquisitor	29 Jan 2005
RedMaple wrote: That would so diminish the story for me -- puts it right into the Dances With Wolves, Last Samurai, etc etc formula -- white western man visits the tribes and becomes great hero. A small point, but the Last Samurai was ripped off from a true biography called The Devil Soldier. I am worried about you and those Hallowquest cards RedMaple !! You might take a notion to whack those borders off one day ... I have been puzzling between Legend and Hallowquest too, and I think I have decided on Hallowquest. I like those arched borders and clearly delineated images . There are just some cards in the Legend deck that are too airy fairy for me in some way.

Cerulean	30 Jan 2005
I think those who delight in their Legends (A.M. Ferguson) probably also know and may have picked up her illustrated volume of Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur -- I do understand why people would be attracted to it. Unfortunately the art has a blurred mistiness that does not do well for me in the settings that I read art cards... But RedMaple and others, Caitlin and John Matthews have a newer Celtic Wisdom Tarot where the earthy, pastel-rich and feel of primitive, tatooed and pigment-splashed settings, garbs and figures are more richly mirrored, if the folkloric feel is more to your tastes. Also, the large cards have no need for borders, and colors run drenched through the edges. It's more similar to feel to the Celtic Book of the Dead--although the art in the Celtic Book of the Dead is very different---the feel might be more akin to your tastes for rich folklore in keeping with the setting. Some of the men and women have the differences in age and appearance that would be more akin to diverse tastes. In my own strange tastes, this style reflects more of the "King Arthur" movie that John Matthews is said to have advised upon. It may be too busy for some tastes. The Hallowquest is Miranda Gray's art style, which pictures clear landscapes with a kind of fantasy Camelot that has more Western romanticism and paler, refined figures. I see this as more of a "Lord of the Rings" feel, perhaps oddly better for me because they are more a symbolic metaphor. Also, I found a second new set and cut the borders in the cards--I have an original 1996 card set that looks identical, although the cards are not as freshly laminated and slippery as the small set. Just suggestions to consider. I'm afraid I do have quirky tastes. Cerulean

WolfSpirit	30 Jan 2005
Cerulean, did you cut the borders of the Hallowquest ? Does that mean the cards now have an arc at the top ? I only have one deck and I would not like to trim that one - wonder what it looks like though...interesting idea.

Cerulean	30 Jan 2005
Yes, I cut to the edges of the black. There's a bit of black at the corners where the arch turns. But I think not all the scenes within the arch are the same size, so I ended up trimming the edges of some of the painted pictures. I'm not certain I would recommend this, it is a lot of work, and took two or three passes each. I did this for a 'smaller' version and it works for me. Best regards, Cerulean

Jewel-ry	30 Jan 2005
Just to throw a spanner in the works :D this was my very first deck and I still love it. It was hard work getting to grips with the meanings but I had never had any other deck so I got there eventually. I spent a lot of time with this deck but there is still more to it that I havn't tapped at all. It still thrills me now! It is stark in places but I love that about it. It brings me home, the scenery is so ... well ... like the countryside here. It is meditative and peaceful and quite special. I havn't trimmed ;)

augursWell	30 Jan 2005
I have both the Arthurian Legend and the Hallowquest decks. I never considered picking one over the other as they are such completely different decks. The Arthurian Hallowquest deck is almost surreal when reading with it. The artwork is so exactingly realistic yet not photographic at all. It really gives you the sense of looking out on a scene that strangely "means" something. Reading the book is essential because you get a sense of why that image and why it contains what it does. I will never forget the Stone Five as I pulled it a few days after one of my cats had died. It is a stark windy landscape with a single standing stone and what looks to be a fallen/dead bird on the ground. Similarity to Rider-Waite meanings are fairly good (in this case the stained glass window with poverty stricken people outside). The Legend deck is very much just that, a story, a tale, a legend that develops around your reading. It is much more a writer's type of deck with cards linking in a reading based on the Arthurian legends we tend to think of today. The artwork evokes that quite well but, as others have said, that artwork does not come across as well on cards as it might in some other way. I am one who picks the deck based on the mood or type of reading so having them both is not a contradiction.

hoomer	19 Apr 2005
The Halowquest deck is great...I love it...Caitlin and John Matthews are great too..I love their writings(most of it)....... I grew up in the shadow of Glastonbury Tor.....the place means a lot to me..heh.... As regards the Merlin tarot...the numbers relate to the paths on the tree of life...if you read the book..the numbers have NOTHING to do with the traditional numeration as featured on most decks...ie fool 0, magician 1, devil 13...etc...... Stewart did NOT make it up......he was taught by William G gray in the late 60's and early 70's.......the numeration refers to the kabbalistic tree of life...nothing more!...to use this deck fully you really need to purchase to out of print (thus sadly hard to find) book called "the complete merlin tarot"...which expands upon ALL of the cards immensly...... The Merlin deck indeed draws its images from the 12th century text "the Vita Merlini"(life of merlin) written by Geoffrey of Monmouth...for any tarot historians yes..IMAGES of tarotchi...from the 12th century....several centuries before tarot cards appeared (unless you go for the go for the egyptian theory..ha) Stewart deliberatly uses plain images for all his minor cards (pips) on the merlin and dream power...as his cards are mostly for magic(k).....as opposed to just "readings"........of course both decks are good for readings.....as regards the dreampower deck Stewart even goes as far as to say that it isnt really a tarot deck.......its really a deck for magic(k)....transformation of the self....alchemy..the great work...(etc)..... The hallowquest is a great deck...one I must get a hold of some time(my mother owned a copy) ...I also have the Celtic wisdom tarot by Caitlin Matthews...but I havent realy used it yet..it remains in the box As regards the other decks...I knoiw nadda......I vote for the Hallowquest as the Matthews are great scholars....heh.....despite their involvement in the lac lustre recent King Arthur film.....which imo was ruined by an awful director...(I've never liked his work) no goats, no glory.... --hoomer

The Arthurian decks: Hallowquest vs. Legend thread was originally posted on 21 Dec 2004 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.