When is a Tarot deck no longer a Tarot deck?

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 13 Dec 2002, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Ophiel	13 Dec 2002
I must be a traditionalist when it comes to Tarot cards as I was just reading a thread about a Fractal Firebird deck and thought it a bit odd, how abstract deck art has become. Perhaps some collect decks and the actual symbolic depiction is less important than the art itself, or that collectors feel these abstract images actually capture the 'feel' of the energy of that card. Are there other decks that are more on the abstract side of things, assuming, of course, that you even agree with me that the Firebird deck is abstract! Surely not every deck designer is in contact with the higher spiritual forces to help guide him/her through the creative process of creating the deck "accurately" in the first place. And actually, I'm thinking it's not really the deck itself, but what the image does to the viewer that matters. Have any, in your humble opinion, gone too far and missed the point of what a Tarot deck is about?

Jewel	13 Dec 2002
I have actually had this happen to me with art decks. I think it is important to note that my lack of knowledge on a particular subject may contribute to me missing the point and the correlations, but I also agree that not every artist is necessarily as versed in tarot as we would prefer. Like you I consider myself somewhat traditionalist. I prefer decks that have 78 cards and follow the Thoth, RWS or Marseilles general formats. Added majors are one area that makes me hesitate in acknowledging decks as tarot vs. another system of divination. I do not own, and have not worked with the Fractal Firebird so I do not feel qualified to give an opinion on whether it is tarot or not. Considering I am not really familiar with fractal (which appears to have something to do with color and shapes) I would probably miss the point of the deck all together.

Khatruman	13 Dec 2002
I would like to answer to this issue by referring to how I see literature and literary criticism, being that I am an English teacher and that is my area of expertise. One of the ideas that I stress to my students when we work with literature is the value of their own meaning and interpretation of a given work of literature. Students will read and understand what's going on in a piece; however, when it comes time to say, "Ok, what is happening here? What message do you see in this?" , many of them will freeze. I found this to be true mostly because they want to give the "right" answer, as if this were a math problem. This is especially true when we deal with poetry. They tend to look at is as a cryptic riddle, and they have to run the code correctly; otherwise, they won't win. I explain to them that what is just as important as what the author wrote is what the reader sees in the work. What you get out of it matters. What makes a work of writing be considered literature (or what I believe should make it literature) is that it connects with readers. And a piece lasts because people can still connect to it. Why Shakespeare still works, and at least three or four movies a year are based on Shakespeare in some way, is that he found a way to connect with unchanging human nature. The author of a piece of literature is not trying to tell you what he thinks or what you should think, otherwise he would have written an essay. He is trying to connect with you and think with you about a common issue. That doesn't mean that anything is right, which is the other extreme my student then may go to. "Ohh, cool, so I can say it means anything I want and I am not wrong!" Well, no, whatever you say must in some way be backed by the text. You can't say Hamlet is about the wonders of pigs in Peoria. I tell them that their ideas are ok, as long as they can show and explain something in the text that agrees with that idea. If the text makes a message, it better bloody well be in there and they better be able to explain where and how. I also tell them to trust their instincts, blurt out what they are thinking, then go back and see if it is there. Many times, it is. To say that a tarot deck must have specific images and clearly defined meanings and definitions makes tarot no longer a evocative literary experience, which in many ways it is. One might as well cut out 78 cards and write a small essay on the card telling the reader how to see it. There is a clear reason why pictures on these cards are important to the tarot. Pictures, being art, will evoke different feelings, reactions, instincts in different viewers' minds, based on their experience and understanding. One may find that many viewers experience similar ideas, and if it is a good piece of work, it will connect with the collective human experience. I think tarot has been around long enough to have developed themes for each card that are time tested and "literary". But to keep them valid, these themes must be tested and expanded and experimented with. To come up with a list of images and specifics that a card must have draws the focus down to the individual images rather than the overall theme. To draw in a religious analogy, one of the roles that Jesus played was to knock his Jewish society out of its obsession with the "letter of the law" and get back to the "spirit of the law." By focusing on the words, the culture had forgotten the ideas behind them. So, as far as the validity of the variation in tarot decks, I believe it is up to the individual reader to determine whether or not a deck holds valid. If it doesn't connect with the reader, it is not. Surely, there will be those who may connect with a specific deck, and those who won't. Time will bear it out. Those that connect with few readers will fall by the wayside; those that connect with many readers will live on and thus become valid. If the criterion for judging the Magician is which hand points to the sky, or whether he has the four suits laid out on a table, etc., then where in that judgment is the meaning or message of the card? I wish to get the Fractal Firebird Tarot that you used as an example because something inside me just lit up when I saw it. Yet I might first, since the deck is dispayed online, test for myself if the cards hold valid meanings against what I know. Perhaps choose a card, meditate on it, write a journal entry then check it against the meanings associated with the card that it represents. I welcome a challenge to the old tradition, in order to keep the spirit of the tradition alive. Peace!

Laurel	13 Dec 2002
This is a really excellent question for discussion. For me, a tarot deck becomes an "oracle deck" or maybe a card game or art when it no longer has 22 Major Arcana with reasonable affinity for those in established tarot decks, 16 Court Cards, and 4 Suits of 10 cards that correspond in a convincing matter to the four elements and traditional suits. However, I'm pretty open-minded as to pictures and symbols because I believe that its not the images on a tarot card that are as meaningful as the ideas and images tarot cards unlock inside our -minds-. Since I think we're all wired differently, I'm willing to give most tarot decks that don't inspire me the benefit of the doubt that they do fire up the insight and imagination of someone else in ways to deserve the name 'tarot'. Laurel

allibee	13 Dec 2002
Inspired thought, I agree, is the main key to the the Tarot. But what is one mans rubbish is another mans treasure. We are all individuals driven by our different motivations and muses, and that is what makes us humans, our differences and not our similarities. It is said of the 3 Coins that when we do our work soley to please others, our work becomes mundane and it shows in the quality of our workmanship. But if we work for the sake of our individuality our inspired thought comes across and can inspire others. However, if our work becomes too idiosyncratic and self absorbed, then our work will suffer from being misunderstood and therefore have no intrinsic value but to the creator of it. The whole gamut of these three ethos can be seen in tarot decks of today, and only a third or less can be truly said to inspire using that as a relative equation. Have I lost the plot? allibee

Teal	13 Dec 2002
My writing teacher in college emphasized that "you have to know the rules to break the rules", and I think the same is true of tarot. I really think that if a person is going to create a deck and call it tarot, it should be after a strong background of the traditional images and use of tarot and following those traditions to a fairly good degree. I think many have just started creating theme decks because tarot is popular without having a real solid personal tarot background. And others have created decks to support some of their own spiritual beliefs, which means you have to learn THEIR method in order to make use of the cards, and to me that's not really tarot. Then there are those like Fractal Firebird that are beautiful but lack the subconscious cues that help to read with them. On the other hand, I do believe that after awhile of studying tarot and grasping the tradition well, a person could create a personal tarot deck of their own using symbols personal to them that might work fantastically well for them. It probably wouldn't work for anyone else very well, though. As for the students getting stymied by thinking they need to give the "right" answer, I think that's one of the drawbacks to public education. Students are taught for most of twelve years that there are "right" and "wrong" answers, so that when they come to the place where suddenly it's "OK" for them to think for themselves, their independent thinking has been malnourished to the point where stepping out on their own is very difficult. I think it's a sad fact that very often, public education teaches kids to fit into a certain mold and not to think or act independently very much. I don't mean to offend you as a teacher, however. You sound like a very good one who encourages students to think for themselves. My step-daughter is a teacher and I have only admiration for those who are dedicated to the teaching profession.

JC	13 Dec 2002
"Traditional" decks can be very abstract, too. The reason the minors are called pips is because "pip" is an archaic synonym for "dot". The numbered minors originally just had dots suggesting their suit and number. That's not exactly abstract; technically it's non-representational, but I'm only nit-picking because I study art. I would consider a deck an oracle deck if it's given meanings did not follow those of a standard tarot deck. I'm having this problem with my Dante deck. It's got all 22 majors and four suits of 16 minors, but the signifigance of the cards changes. And there are several decks of only 22 cards - the majors - that I still consider tarot decks.

Cerulean	13 Dec 2002
That is an excellent question, as I've just set aside again two nice variant decks, not for vacation-reading, as I'm going out of town soon...just not close enough to what I am used to in a deck. The two that I am setting aside are reproductions: Jeu Des Dames, an Etteilla-like French deck, and the Tarot Di Alan Tarocco, the one with 22 trumps commissioned for the Lloyd Steamship lines as a novelty. I cannot read with them yet. I think I am taking my Visconti Gold with book for history, Fey Tarot with book for fun...and for my curiousness, the Crystals Tarot by Lo Scarabeo. We'll be in snow country and I promised myself that I would take the beautiful deck and the Tarot Dictionary and list each card's colors, and the 'hidden' or background pictures. For instance, the picture of a dog or butterfly motif might be a lovely fade-in or accent or one could decide the companion dog means a friendly, animal presence and the butterfly could symbolize inspiration. There is some resemblence in the arrangement of the decorative pips to shapes...as one example, the four of wands in a squarish shape might be a stability symbol. The Crystals Tarot by Lo Scarabeo is a tarot deck in feeling and yet, it is so abstract in certain ways, it doesn't seem right to do elemental assigning such as water for cups/chalices. It is too pretty not to use, so I'm making an attempt to see what I can, before trying to buy the Italian book through Trigomo... Best wishes, Mari H.

HudsonGray	13 Dec 2002
I guess, on a very basic level, a tarot isn't a tarot anymore when it just doesn't connect with the user. Once you loose function, a deck no longer can do what it's designed for. This still leaves things wide open as to what works for which person, but in the final analysis, I think that's as simple as you can get it.

Khatruman	13 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Teal My writing teacher in college emphasized that "you have to know the rules to break the rules", and I think the same is true of tarot. I totally agree, and even tell my students that they must know the rules, but rules in tarot are guidelines. There is no absolute consensus in tarot as to meanings of cards, and I do believe that a personal deck can resonate with another as well as with the person who created the deck. I am a fiction writer as well, and I know, as a writer, I am often not thinking of how it will resonate with my audience, but how it is true to me and the world I perceive. What ends up happening is that, the truer I am to my own understanding, the more my readers see my writing as true and relate to it. Quote: Be careful where you put the blame when you say public education. First of all, at lower levels, students need much structure to learn how to work in the world and understand the different life lessons we are mandated to teach them. As you mentioned earlier, they need to know the rules before they can break them. Secondly, I constantly try to encourage higher order thinking, which includes independent and critical thinking, which is not about a single right answer, but about a credible answer and thoughtful answer. My colleagues do the same. My students hate me for it. They want a right answer. They want a grade. For the most part, their interest isn't in learning, but in getting the grade. Also, I think private institutions are in similar situations in this too. Parents also often feed into the right answer mode also. There is another adage which states, "Don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins" Thank you for your compliments, and yes, I do always encourage them to think, making *grading* tougher since to them it might seem that I am giving them grades based on likes and dislikes, if I don't give them a score. My fellow teachers always encourage students to think for themselves. But there is a machine to feed and that is part of everyone's fault if it seems that they are not made into independent entities... many do not want to be. Peace!

truthsayer	14 Dec 2002
for me, a deck is no longer a tarot when the guiding organization is changed in some fundamental way that changes how i use the cards. for example, the celtic dragon switches fire for swords and wands for air. that doesn't change that i can use them as tarot. however, i have difficulty reading a tarot b/c with extra cards like the shapeshifter or faery wicca. the extra cards distract from my ability to read the deck as a whole. it pushes me to learn more archetypal images than what i have learned to use in a reading. tarot deck creators either use verbal evocative images and words or evocative shapes and colors. both are 2 different languages to reading tarot. lady freida harris used shapes or sacred geometry in her paintings of the thoth. it is her mark on the deck that keeps it from being totally crowley's deck and lightens up its energy. if you look closely at the images you can see shapes like triangles worked into a tarot image. this makes the thoth more connected to a universal consciousness imagistic way since a universal language of shape was used in the deck. i see the rws as more of a verbal deck. when i see the images, i think of the meanings of the symbols and the words on the cards. this impacts my reaction to the cards. i don't see shape used metaphysically in rws like lady freida did with thoth. doesn't mean either deck is inferior. just some ppl respond more depending on the style of their thinking. you can be a "can't see the forest b/c of the trees" person or a "can't see the trees b/c of the forest". your learning style and brain dominance issues ultimately affect(imho) what decks one finds appealing. ppl that are very left brained are going to seek decks that are more linear, organized, and verbal. ppl that are right brained are less organized, more spatially oriented, more non verbal,and less detail oriented-prefering to look at shapes and colors more so than verbal qualities. does this make any sense at all?

jmd	14 Dec 2002
Well Ophiel, this thread you started is an example of why I was so pleased to see you back on Aeclectic after so many absent months. The simplicity of the three paragraphs belie the depths both they and the discussion which ensues contains. Though, in my opinion, the spiritual world manifests through the creative work of the Tarot artists (I include both the person physically 'painting' the deck and the person who may have beheld a vision and communicated the same to the former here), I do agree that not all Tarot have been designed as a work of sacred art. I wonder, for those that haven't, how much of the spiritual world has been influential in its becoming, or whether the artist has permitted their own personal (and maybe rigid) views to determine the deck. With regards to whether the effects of the image on the viewer become more important than the creative process, I probably agree - but are the two dissimilar? I would suspect that a deck well executed as a spiritual endeavour will more likely affect the viewer than another deck, also well executed, but with more personal whims, would. Khatruman speaks, at one stage, of the spirit of the law and its importance above the letter of the law - and I agree. In that sense, the words do have to change in order for the spirit to continue to be properly represented should the words have acquired different meanings. On the other hand, study may reveal that most of the words have in fact not changed - rather our own personal knowledge and understanding was limited to parochially-determined partial insights. It may be that 'By focusing on the words, the culture had forgotten the ideas behind them', but does that imply that the words be done away with, or, alternatively, re-invigorated with the ideas which properly belongs to them? As ideas - ie, enriched inter-weaved concepts - narrow meanings cannot be assigned to the cards: symbols shall remain, thus, multifaceted and layered - this does not mean, on the other hand, that 'there is no absolute consensus in tarot as to meanings of cards', rather than these cannot be clearly and specifically articulated. It may be worthwhile, in another thread, discussing education... for though I agree that 'at lower levels, students need much structure to learn how to work in the world and understand the different life lessons we are mandated to teach them', I suspect we have vastly different views - though of course this depends what is meant by 'at lower levels'. The 'structure' I would see as extremely important is rhythm, and the understanding and lessons are but engagement which reflects the vast richness of various epochs - and certainly no grading is required until relatively quite late. The push for standardising and measuring human achievement and development is just one of those international drives counterproductive to education in general. With Laurel I must here agree: 'a tarot deck becomes an "oracle deck" or maybe a card game or art when it no longer has 22 Major Arcana with reasonable affinity for those in established tarot decks, 16 Court Cards, and 4 Suits of 10 cards that correspond in a convincing matter to the four elements and traditional suits', and the reason why those images work in the first place is, in my opinion, that they have been created as spiritually impulsed manifestations. When I read allibee's 'We are all individuals', my wicked sense of humour wanted to shout, with whoever it was in The Life of Brian 'I'm not!', but then thought I had better finish reading the post :). This question of individuality is so important with regards to questions of freedom and of thinking, feeling and willing. In combining these in myriad ways, we are undoubtedly 'driven by our different motivations', being so driven, however, does not preclude that the same spiritual world and iconography, music and words or images impact on each of us with a great degree of similarity. Though someone else may not enjoy Bach as I do, or the Marseilles as I do - and though I do not enjoy the Sex Pistols as they do, nor the Egyptian Tarot as others may - careful study of materials pertinent to each of these would, I suspect, lead us to similar appreciations. In that sense, the creation of one's own deck, though not made as a general deck, but merely as a step along the path to understanding the Tarot in greater depth becomes, to my mind, immeasurably important. The greater the care, the greater the deck created - though still a personal one, whether it have one of those wonderful adjectives used by truthsayer to describe, for example, the Waite/Colman-Smith ('more of a verbal deck'), or not. The Tarot will continue to, if changing, only slowly and steadily do so. ...and if a deck just doesn't 'connect' with a user, it may still very much be a (or even the ;)) Tarot... which the user will possibly need to do much research upon if s/he wishes to make such connection. This thread reminds me of AmounrA's earlier What makes Tarot work?, which has similar aspects touching these important questions.

Trogon	14 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Laurel For me, a tarot deck becomes an "oracle deck" or maybe a card game or art when it no longer has 22 Major Arcana with reasonable affinity for those in established tarot decks, 16 Court Cards, and 4 Suits of 10 cards that correspond in a convincing matter to the four elements and traditional suits. I have to very much agree with Laurel here. So far, I've been concentrating on relatively traditional Tarot decks. In other words, those which are designed in the manner of a 78-card Tarot deck. I would add that a 22-card Majors only deck might still count as a "Tarot" deck if the Majors were at least loosly based on the "traditional" Major Arcana. I am, however, considering a few of the oracle-type decks, such as the Medicine Cards. This one appeals to me because of the Native American culture as well as the animals it portrays.

Diana	14 Dec 2002
To me a Tarot deck must have 22 cards, or 78. The Majors hold as a deck, but the Minors by themselves don't. The Majors must have some, nay a lot of, historical symbolic basis to them, and the Minors must make sense numerologically. The Minors must have four suits, representing Air, Fire, Water and Earth. That is a Tarot deck to me. But of course, just because the decks contains all these elements, doesn't mean it's a deck worth having.

Khatruman	14 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by jmd Khatruman speaks, at one stage, of the spirit of the law and its importance above the letter of the law - and I agree. In that sense, the words do have to change in order for the spirit to continue to be properly represented should the words have acquired different meanings. On the other hand, study may reveal that most of the words have in fact not changed - rather our own personal knowledge and understanding was limited to parochially-determined partial insights. Thank you, first of all, for a very thoughtful reply here to much that has been said. I am an English teacher, teaching Advanced Placement and Honors English. I also have a Master's Degree in Linguistic. I tell you this so that you know I have a bit of expertise from which I speak. Words are constantly in flux. Words are a form of symbol for a concept we perceive in our world. In that case then, a word means what the culture has represented it to mean. To say that words have not changed is not true. Words are in constant change, which is why, in fact, it is important to buy a new dictionary every five years or so. Dictionary creators, in fact, gather literature and examine how a word is being used by the culture in order to write a definition for it. Words go through evolutions. For example, one of my pet peeve words is Nice, a word that has come to mean very little because it has taken on too much and has become quite bland. It originates from Old French and meant, then, "simple minded." It has since gone through several meanings to a point where, now, it has become a word used to mean bland and pleasant. Nice in reference to a person connotes, quite often, that the evaluator can think of nothing substantial to say about the person. Another example, the word Weird. Today, we equate it with strange; however, its Old English origin is Wyrd which refers to Fate. Since it was used in the context of something out of the ordinary which seemed destined to happen, and since our culture has since weakened our belief in Fate, it now comes to mean strange. There are some words whose meanings have remained relatively the same, but in some ways, all words change, if only in connotation. My point regarding this matter in my post was not that words and images should be abandoned, but that slavish devotion to words needs to be challenged to make sure the spirit of the message remains in them. If we say that tarot cannot be varied from the traditional words and image, and never challenge those things, then it becomes invalid because our focus is on the wrong thing: we watch the trees rather than the forest. Let folks play with and change the words and images. If it stops resonating, then it will just fade away. I think tarot is archetypal and will survive the experimentation, and what is true tarot will still emerge anyway, and be more vibrant than ever. Did not Waite and Crowley and the Golden Dawn experiment with "traditional" tarot, and have not their words and images become now the tradition? Quote: It may be that 'By focusing on the words, the culture had forgotten the ideas behind them', but does that imply that the words be done away with, or, alternatively, re-invigorated with the ideas which properly belongs to them? As ideas - ie, enriched inter-weaved concepts - narrow meanings cannot be assigned to the cards: symbols shall remain, thus, multifaceted and layered - this does not mean, on the other hand, that 'there is no absolute consensus in tarot as to meanings of cards', rather than these cannot be clearly and specifically articulated. I guess I did not make myself clear in this. I meant not the symbols and symbolic archetypes but the dictionary meanings ascribed in texts, such as LWBs, treatises by someone like Waite or someone like Rachel Pollack. I was referring to meaning in saying, "Oh, well this card means..." as if it is an equal sign. The nature of symbol is that it is multifaceted and layered...("Ogres are like onions..." ;) quoting Shrek). So we deepen the layers by playing with them and looking at things in our evolving culture that have become symbolic and enrich the ideas. If we devote ourselves to keeping traditional images, we may lose some of the power of the symbol. For example, A Good Samaritan. We still use the allusion to the parable of the person who goes out of his way to help others. However, many have lost one of the most powerful layers of this parables in what a Samaritan is. To the person Jesus told this parable to, a Samaritan used as the good guy would equate to us using a member of the Al Qaida (forgive the spelling). So if tarot had a Good Samaritan card, would it not make it more true to the spirit of the card if I were to depict an Al Qaida on the card helping an wounded American soldier? Jesus offered a challenge to the concept of who your neighbor is, not a feel good card about being good to your next door neighbor. Quote: It may be worthwhile, in another thread, discussing education... for though I agree that 'at lower levels, students need much structure to learn how to work in the world and understand the different life lessons we are mandated to teach them', I suspect we have vastly different views - though of course this depends what is meant by 'at lower levels'. The 'structure' I would see as extremely important is rhythm, and the understanding and lessons are but engagement which reflects the vast richness of various epochs - and certainly no grading is required until relatively quite late. The push for standardising and measuring human achievement and development is just one of those international drives counterproductive to education in general. I agree 100% with you!!! Now, come to my school, get a teaching position and DO THAT. I know from my own experience I want that too... and every chance I get, I teach the abstract, higher order concept of rhythm, especially in poetry and the actual language of prose. I, in fact, tell students, "Listen, when we study certain pieces of literature, it doesn't mean these are the ones you have to learn. We are studying how to learn literature. It is like before you were a driver, I am helping you become a mechanic. Look at what is going on inside the words, inside the actual text." Of course, I am quite often met with blank stares or questions about what's going to be on the test. In the meantime, supervisors and administrators are drilling me to make sure I complete the curriculum, make sure my grades are verifiable and evenly distributed among the A-F scale, and the State is telling me they need to be able to read and write according to specific criteria, or the students will not get the diploma they need to graduate. Believe me, I know I didn't get into this profession to follow a rigid and mindless agenda and just collect a paycheck. I would have remained a bartender if I were in it for the money. I know my fellow teachers are in it for that love and sacrifice. There are several easier jobs that offer more money, less stress, don't make you responsible for the futures of all citizens at all levels in your community, let you go home and not even have to think of your job, let alone spend the rest of your night, your weekends, your summers working on that job as a requirement in order to be effective. Quote: When I read allibee's 'We are all individuals', my wicked sense of humour wanted to shout, with whoever it was in The Life of Brian 'I'm not!', but then thought I had better finish reading the post :). This question of individuality is so important with regards to questions of freedom and of thinking, feeling and willing. In combining these in myriad ways, we are undoubtedly 'driven by our different motivations', being so driven, however, does not preclude that the same spiritual world and iconography, music and words or images impact on each of us with a great degree of similarity . Though someone else may not enjoy Bach as I do, or the Marseilles as I do - and though I do not enjoy the Sex Pistols as they do, nor the Egyptian Tarot as others may - careful study of materials pertinent to each of these would, I suspect, lead us to similar appreciations. ...and if a deck just doesn't 'connect' with a user, it may still very much be a (or even the ;)) Tarot... which the user will possibly need to do much research upon if s/he wishes to make such connection. I love that you did quote Life of Brian! The irony in that little scene is wonderful, and it does make sense that you quote it there. The one that refuses to believe he is individual, in fact, is the only one who is. He is also the only one rebelling against the idea of the wise icon, from whom the others just hang on each word without question. I am a firm believer in the collective unconscious, and in fact see the Great Spirit as being something that runs through all of creation, not the Father image of Christianity, aloof and separate. So in this sense, those who study tarot and push its boundaries in fact keep it a living and breathing entity. And when you, or others, say what someone has done isn't tarot, then you are also doing the work of the Spirit. If it isn't tarot, it fades away, if it calls up something about tarot that we have forgotten, then it strengthens it. But that rebelliousness has to be there in order to keep tarot alive. Peace!

Cerulean	14 Dec 2002
Gently intended, I am intrigued by what people mean by historical and traditional. This also might be off-topic, but I encourage others to expand their definition of standard historical tarot. Perhaps the notes below might suggest something to you. General history: There's the family of European tarocchis that evolved into the style known as Marseilles from about 1450 throughout the 1800s. Variants in design exist--we're still guessing if there are assignments of elements or historical astrology in these tarots, as well as their noted allegorical trump patterns or hiearchies. They might be considered traditional tarot/tarocchis and historical, as well. Around the 1800s throughout the 1920s, other historical tarot/tarocchis came to be with astrology/other slants (including the newer Egyptian links). JW Revak's Villa Revak notes traditions that arose around the turn of two different centuries. Etteilla was within the turn of the 19th century and Mathers/Waite (Smith) was around the turn of the 20th century through 1920. Their meanings can be considered historical tarot, just might not always be applicable to today's style of reading or books. Crowley (Harris), Knapp-Hall and other patterns also evolved between 1912 and 1940s. Some historical variants such as the Caligstro (1912) by Modiano/U.S. Games are still called tarot and employ an esoteric astrology that have four elements that might be (still researching) more related to defunct Golden Dawn or playing card reading. The Caligstro in design also links to archiac--that is not historically verifiable---popular 1900's romantic views of Egyptian motifs. A variant such as Caligstro was designed with a different kind of astrology that isn't commonly used today. While widening my definition of what is historical tarot, it is true that I pick and choose selectively... Mari H.

allibee	14 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Khatruman For example, one of my pet peeve words is Nice , a word that has come to mean very little because it has taken on too much and has become quite bland. It originates from Old French and meant, then, "simple minded." It has since gone through several meanings to a point where, now, it has become a word used to mean bland and pleasant. Thank you for pointing that out, as I always knew there was something 'deeper' our Queen Elizabeth meant whenever she imparted her famous "How very nice for you" to those people that had talked beyond their time to her! Quote: So in this sense, those who study tarot and push its boundaries in fact keep it a living and breathing entity. And when you, or others, say what someone has done isn't tarot, then you are also doing the work of the Spirit. If it isn't tarot, it fades away, if it calls up something about tarot that we have forgotten, then it strengthens it. But that rebelliousness has to be there in order to keep tarot alive. Isn't that somewhat contradictory? If you push the boundaries beyond comprehension, beyond recall, then by default that rebelliousness can only serve to drive the tarot into the slough of despond, instead of the sea of the collective unconscious. Or am I being opaque? – by which I don't refer to the presently accepted meaning of unclear, but in the older meaning of dull witted. allibee

jmd	14 Dec 2002
What a great thread - and I see allibee has also made a reply as I write this - I'll have to read it after I post. Of course I acknowledge that language usage changes over time (and each person's comments stand on their own merits, with or without official academic qualifications - which I do, incidently, value unreservedly). If I read a text which said: 'He was a youngish gay gentleman who enjoyed a root or two', I would certainly not normally read it to mean that this 32 year old aristocrat is generally a happy lad who enjoys eating potatoes (in colloquial Australian, 'root' refers to sexual intercourse)! To be sure, when I wrote 'on the other hand, study may reveal that most of the words have in fact not changed - rather our own personal knowledge and understanding was limited to parochially-determined partial insights', I acknowledge that my expression was somewhat confused. Our own current and locally determined usage shades the expression to, at times, conceal its (original) meaning. Study is required to unveil the sentence's meaning(s) in its context (including historical). And here I jumped a little to its iconographic equivalent, but added that most words of that language have not really changed, though there certainly appears far less iconographic-literacy than there was a few centuries ago. The learning for each of us is thus more difficult than learning our own mother tongue or even second or third language, as for these latter, defining characteristics are encouraged to narrow words' denotations - the reverse is generally true of Tarot's (and other) symbolic iconography, where shades of whole stories and related meanings enrich the image - and the learning requires (yes, I'll use such a strong term) meditative and reflective practices, slowly permitting the faculties of imagination, inspiration and intuition to develop... not something our culture currently encourages. With regards to my comment about Khatruman's and my possible disparate views on education, my apologies - I obviously misread what you didn't say, Khatruman (ie, I took a particular direction with your words' possible connotations - an error of judgement on my part). I do take Khatruman's point about encouraging experimentation with the Tarot, and commented on how I personally regard this as immeasurably important. In some ways, and whether it gets done physically of imaginatively (though the former is, in my opinion, superior), it becomes one of the most important tools at our disposal to penetrate Tarot. Focussing merely on the words or images, rather than that to which they point, is certainly not what is at hand - as a Ch'an/Zen saying expresses: the idiot looks at the finger, the wise at the Moon to which it points. We must not forget, however, that there is also significance in that there is a finger which points, and that this finger is attached to an individual with particular intent (otherwise, looking at the Moon becomes as misguided as looking at the finger). The images used on the Tarot, then, also have their import. With regards to expanding what Tarot may or may not be, I highly value Mari_Hoshizaki's posts. There are two ways one may respond. Either we include Montegna, Cagliostro, D'Este castle depictions, and other descriptions (such as aspects of Astrology and Magic) as actual Tarot, or, which I prefer, as aspects which have played into the developing manifestation of Tarot - some of which will fall by the wayside (including, I suspect, and just to finish on a controversial note, the Waite numbering variant of Justice and Strength ;)).

Khatruman	15 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by allibee If you push the boundaries beyond comprehension, beyond recall, then by default that rebelliousness can only serve to drive the tarot into the slough of despond, instead of the sea of the collective unconscious. Or am I being opaque? – by which I don't refer to the presently accepted meaning of unclear, but in the older meaning of dull witted. allibee Wooo hooo.. I love linguistic play! :D... anyway, just to clarify, allibee, I don't mean to push the boundaries beyond comprehension, or even to accept those who vary, but my point is to say that we need a bit of a push in order to see where those boundaries are. Indeed, even in creating the question, we look inside, put our heads together and debate what is and what is not tarot. People have gotten down to the number of cards, major arcana, number of suits, etc. etc. Not taking anything for granted. The rebelliousness is needed to rally the traditionalists, and when the rebellion comes within the camp, then the camp must re-evaluate and hold to what it truly holds dear. Ironic, huh? :) And to you, jmd, I truly admire your intelligent and academic mind, and enjoy the debate. I don't want to deteriorate into nit picking, but I think, at this point, we have greatly clarified our points and see our views. Thank you for the enlightenments! Peace! PS. In regards to being contradictory... please look at my signature line.. *smiles*... I think we can all be contradictory. It's part of being open to all things!

Khatruman	15 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by jmd Of course I acknowledge that language usage changes over time (and each person's comments stand on their own merits, with or without official academic qualifications - which I do, incidently, value unreservedly). If I read a text which said: ' He was a youngish gay gentleman who enjoyed a root or two ', I would certainly not normally read it to mean that this 32 year old aristocrat is generally a happy lad who enjoys eating potatoes (in colloquial Australian, 'root' refers to sexual intercourse)! I apologize if my reference to my profession and education gave an air of snobbery. I just sensed that your initial response to mine implied a lack of knowledge on my part and tried to qualify that. No other intention on the worth of anyone else's views. That is hardly what I believe and spend much of my days convincing my students that their views are as valid as the boring old farts they read from! *s* Didn't gay once mean foppish and merry? Peace!

allibee	15 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Khatruman Wooo hooo.. I love linguistic play! :D... Well. I'd like to say thank you actually, because for the first time in MANY years you made me put my thinking cap on before I replied to your post. Perhaps that is something that I should do more often..... nah... shoot first and ask questions later *LOL* But thank you anyway. :D allibee ****Didn't gay once mean foppish and merry?***** A dandy, no less.

Khatruman	15 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by allibee Well. I'd like to say thank you actually, because for the first time in MANY years you made me put my thinking cap on before I replied to your post. Perhaps that is something that I should do more often..... nah... shoot first and ask questions later *LOL* But thank you anyway. :D allibee ****Didn't gay once mean foppish and merry?***** A dandy, no less. Ahhh, I always smile knowing that I have made people think.. as you have done for me. Nothing wrong with a quick shoot though either.. *s* Be Well, and Peace for the holidays

Cerulean	15 Dec 2002
yes, all puns intended. Finger and the Moon is also a title of a tarot novel. A very unintentionally funny tarot novel...and for JMD, it might be a bit of a zinger if noted as a finger or the moon in association with tarot. Of course, to further stretch the tarot-like associations through the rubber band of humor, the author of Finger and the Moon is British and his tarot puns are truly obscure. But he seems to be adored by the Caitlin and John Matthews school that stretch tarot into "STORIES OF KING ARTHUR" Ah, my lovelies, the conspiracy is vast, though pointed...trying to pursuade JMD that King Arthur and Grail Legend has any close associations to do with tarot would be a quest for the brave. Perhaps I need to return to my obscure roman ruins.. I bow to all learned and evolved souls here. I am leaving you with gentle agreement in all things, knowing in myself there is also my own ever-shifting views. What a delightful post this is and I intend to print this out and enjoy reading all the perceptions.

The When is a Tarot deck no longer a Tarot deck? thread was originally posted on 13 Dec 2002 in the Talking Tarot board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Talking Tarot, or read more archived threads.