The vaguer differences between French and English tarot traditions

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 25 Apr 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

ihcoyc	25 Apr 2003
I'm just under halfway through the Carole Sédillot book Ombres et Lumières du Tarot as recommended to me, IIRC, by jmd, Diana, and Rusty Neon. Trying to put my finger on some of the differences between the French and English traditions. There are a lot of fairly substantial differences in divinatory meanings in the Minors, somewhat fewer in the Majors. It impressed me that Sédillot's take on the Empress --- and I gather, the French tradition in general --- is much less sexualized than the English speaking tradition. Astrologically the French link her with Virgo rather than Venus; mythologically, with Pallas Athene rather than Isis or Cybele. This seems to me to be one of the keys to the major differences I see. The mythology discussed by Sédillot is also very different in --- how can I put it? --- atmosphere compared to what you will find in, say, Rachel Pollack. Greek and Roman mythology is forefronted, and it's mostly the same as I remember in Latin class. You occasionally get references to, say, Gilgamesh, but here too it seems pretty by the book. Thank whatever god you choose that there isn't any Celtica in here! No all-consuming primitive blood goddesses, just the relatively well-groomed Greek and Roman ones. Of course, we're dealing with the Tarot de Marseille here, so there isn't going to be any downplaying of Christian elements here; the Pope is still the Pope, and it's still Gabriel on the Judgment. Another thing that seems backgrounded in the French tradition is the vague Jungianism that seems fronted in the English books. Sédillot occasionally speaks of "archetypes," but spends a lot more time carefully discussing the symbols actually present on each card. She relates them, not only to the Hebrew alphabet --- something fairly distant in most of the more recent English traditions --- but also to the Latin alphabet, something I have never seen anyone do in English. While the more recent English tradition seems vaguely lunar, full of Celtic twilight (wrong for the world of Tarot IMO), mists and fog, and its mythology has been thoroughly Llewellynized, at least these French tradition is more solar, less likely to shy away from Christian spirituality, more classical in its mythology, and more in seeming continuity with nineteenth century alternative spiritualities. This strikes me as a breath of fresh air. But am I totally misreading the situation here?

jmd	26 Apr 2003
Wonderful post, ihcoyc! I personally agree so much with what you say - though some may see that as an inherent bias in my approach... Similar reflections are what, it seems, lead the anonymous author of Meditations on the Tarot to want to write his Christian oriented but Hermetic text in the French (despite his British residence). Your comment that the 'French tradition is more solar, less likely to shy away from Christian spirituality, more classical in its mythology' is what draws me to seek further texts in the language - not only on Tarot, but also Masonic. Thankyou.

Cerulean	29 Apr 2003
I remember there was a small reference in one of the introductory Mary Greer books to a 'continental' slant to Marseilles-based decks, but it's not as specific nor as cleanly described as your description of French to English styles. I'd like to check any translated Italian commentary to 'pinpoint' perspectives as you have done.

Alex	09 May 2003
We are talking about different cultural traditions, aren't we? Not only "language", but culture; different ways of looking at life, social roles etc. Alex.

ihcoyc	09 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Alex We are talking about different cultural traditions, aren't we? Not only "language", but culture; different ways of looking at life, social roles etc. Historically, I wonder how it all came to pass. The strong presence of what the English speaking world calls "Celtic" material in the English tradition strikes me as a decisive difference. Of course, the French have about as good a claim to "Celtic" as anyone in Britain has, but not as much seems to be made of it there. W. B. Yeats mixed up Celtica with the Golden Dawn material, and he and his brother strongly influenced Pamela Colman Smith; and the largest stream of anglophone Tarot tradition is a midrash on PCS's creation. The "Celtic" stuff is mixed up with earth religion and other volkisch forms of romanticism in England. There is no direct counterpart to, say, The Golden Bough in French. The English romanticizing about "pagan survivals" in the mid-20th century actually started with Puritan rhetoric during the English religious wars; it was seized on by Frazer and his followers looking for hidden relics of fertility worship in popular culture. Frazer and that ilk were led endlessly astray by Puritans who wished to attack various Roman Catholic customs as pagan idolatry. They seized on this talk, misinterpreted it, and said, "Look, paganism survived the Church for a thousand years. Here's a seventeenth century writer who says so." The issues were different then and now. This moony business fortunately seems never to have really caught on in France. Never having been governed by Puritans, there was no need to re-interpret rural Christian folklore as pagan survivals. To do so would be unconvincing and unimpressive. Speaking a Romance language, they were in a direct lineage with the classical world in a way the English were not. If there were pagan survivals they'd know about them. The Roman connexion was more important to the French than the Celtic one was. Looking at the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, you get a sense of what people in the Renaissance found attractive in classical architecture. You also see what the people who decorated Versailles thought they were doing. And likewise, when Court de Gébelin thought to invent an impressive ancient history for Tarot cards, he turned to idealised classical civilisations rather than to volkisch earth-mysticism or pagan survivals. Of course, he made up the mostly-bogus Egyptian background when the Renaissance background was impressive enough in itself. He too was trying to find vestiges of a primitive world in contemporary phenomena, but he looked in a different direction for those relics.

littleneptune	09 May 2003
This is a fascinating subject. I apologize if this question has been asked previously, but are there any english (language) books which address the differences between the French and English tarot traditions?

Diana	09 May 2003
littleneptune: I doubt it. Of course, if ihcoyc had some time, he could write one. (I'm being serious here.....)

ihcoyc	09 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune This is a fascinating subject. I apologize if this question has been asked previously, but are there any english (language) books which address the differences between the French and English tarot traditions? Not directly. But if you are interested in these subjects, you probably ought to read Michæl Dummett et. al's three books about the history of the Tarot: The Game of Tarot (Dummett) A Wicked Pack of Cards: The Origins of the Occult Tarot (Decker, DePaulis, Dummett) A History of the Occult Tarot (Decker, Dummett) The three books are essentially a series. Book 1 covers the card game and the decks used to play it. Book 2 starts with Court de Gébelin through the 19th century. Book 3 covers Golden Dawn through Eden Gray. I've read 2 and 3 but have yet to find 1. They are rather hostile "debunking" books in places, but their targets did a lot to deserve it. :) Another book that discusses these things in a more general, less Tarot-centered way is The Triumph of the Moon by Ronald Hutton. (His The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles is also worth checking out.) This does not treat of the Tarot per se, but talks about the influences that gave us Sir James Frazer, Margaret Murray, and Robert Graves, how they were misled or misread too much into their sources, and the cultural aftereffects of their speculations.

Cerulean	09 May 2003
The Game of the Tarot seems to be going online for over $300.00 when I checked Abebooks.com last week, then Amazon and Half.com. Below, none of the suggestions really go into the juicy discussions that started this thread...more about designs and disclaimers of old fuzzy ideas of historical tarot. I settled last year for Dummett's History of the Occult Tarot Volume I and II and this past week, his color edition describing the Visconti cards for about $24.00 to $35.00 each. Dummett's more of a playing card historian, so divination fans can be irritated by his discussions. Kaplan's Encyclopedia, Volume II has more of the historical Italian tarots, if that is your interest. (My focus in my study groups is rather tight in the 15th thru early 16th centuries, Italy) . I think Volume I is rather general in comparison with history and some distinctive decks that appeared in the 1960s through the early 1980's. Volume III goes into great detail of Pamela Colman Smith and later 20th century tarots. If you want to fast-forward into some of the history of the French-patterns from the 1800s (Etteilla) to Golden Dawn of the late 1800s through the early 1900s, the two-volume Dummett books and Kaplan sources give some background. A very good website to check out, is James Revak's "Villa Revak"...it had some discussion from Etteilla to Golden Dawn. Websites such as Andy's Playing Cards and Tom Tadforlittle's Hermitage focus on 'card patterns' and historical cards from different regions. Hope these ideas are interesting or related to your studies. Mari H.

littleneptune	10 May 2003
Thank you Ihcoyc and Mari_Hoshizaki for your suggestions, I'll look into these right away. I don't have a problem with "debunking" books. I wonder if studying books on the Marseilles deck would give me an understanding of the different approach that is taken? I guess an english language book on any subject would likely be tainted by the anglo tradition...(at last edit I can't even find an english language book devoted exclusively to the Marseilles deck).

ihcoyc	10 May 2003
Some English books I am aware of that deal chiefly with the Tarot de Marseille: The Magical World of the Tarot by Gareth Knight The Treasure House of Images, also by Gareth Knight Meditations on the Tarot (anonymous, by Valentin Tomberg) is available in English Tarot of the Gypsies or, Tarot of the Bohemians by Papus is also available in English; as is Transcendental Magic y Eliphas Lévi. I understand that Jung and Tarot disucsses the Tarot de Marseille, but I have not read it.

Rusty Neon	10 May 2003
English language books on both the major and minor arcanas of the TdM deck ... let's see ... There is a book by Maxwell called _The Tarot_ from the 19th century which has been translated from French into English. It seems to be out of print. I haven't bought or read it as there were enough French language books around, and now that I recently wanted to buy it, it was no longer on the store shelf. (Ironically, it sold for way less money in English translation than in the French original.) Maxwell's book deals with the TdM major and minor arcana. Apparently in terms of colour symbolism analysis, it refers to a TdM Conver deck with colour symbolism that's different from any of the Conver 1760 decks (and their restorations), Marteau deck (and its clones), or Camoin Bicentennial version of the Conver, but it appears to be the only book in English that discuss the pictorial symbolism of the minor arcana of the TdM. Keep an eye out for it. A book that I own but haven't yet had a chance to read which deals with the symbolism of the TdM major arcana is Kenneth D. Newman's _The Tarot: A Myth of Male Initiation_, published in 1983 by the C.G. Jung Foundation for Analytical Psychology. According to the back cover of the book, Newman is a graduate of the C.G. Jung Institute of Zurich and (as of 1983, at least) was in private practice. Both Papus and Wirth wrote books on their respective personal decks (Major Arcana, in the case of Wirth). The English translation of Papus' book is already noted in ihcoyc's post above. Wirth's book _Le Tarot des imagiers du Moyen Age_ has also been translated into English.

Aerin	11 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune Thank you Ihcoyc and Mari_Hoshizaki for your suggestions, I'll look into these right away. I don't have a problem with "debunking" books. I wonder if studying books on the Marseilles deck would give me an understanding of the different approach that is taken? I guess an english language book on any subject would likely be tainted by the anglo tradition...(at last edit I can't even find an english language book devoted exclusively to the Marseilles deck). People tell stories in their own way for different reasons. In that way everyone's telling is 'tainted', I don't like that word though: I would call it 'coloured'. As an example.... I met an archeologist once who told me that the way money is allocated for investigations is highly political, and depends on how the culture wants to perceive itself. I can't remember the details of which governments give money for what, but he mentioned the French, the Italians, the Greeks and the Germans as well as the British for being deeply selective in terms of what they 'allow' people to pay attention to. I remember him saying that the easiest thing to get money for here was the excavation of Roman sites. In terms of Tarot, I personally focus on what I find useful and I think that different traditions all have value in creating the tool. I enjoy the Celtic slant, while knowing that it is has its roots in mythology some of which is recently born. You could argue that all of it is - I don't really mind as long as it is useful for me. I love both new and old myths and fairy tales as they help me make meaning of my choices in the present. ihcoyc, interestingly I find the Egyptian stuff far less evocative - I am a child of my culture. And that's OK. I guess what I'm saying is, I'd be concerned if people rejected certain cultural interpretations and re-interpretations because they were somehow seen as less worthy or less 'true' (whatever the heck that means). People tell stories. We all tell stories. They make meaning from many sources, and tell you a lot about the culture. I like that. Difference doesn't always have to mean making something or someone wrong. Aerin ps I think I'm getting very relativist and constructionist in my old age

ihcoyc	11 May 2003
My objections to "Celtica" don't really stem from anything Celtic that's in it. The problem with Celtica is that it is drawn largely from late 19th century opinions archaeology and anthropology. We now have a better understanding of this, and realize that there's a lot we don't know and much we may never know. But the late 19th century, people's thinking was guided by the Aryan Myth. And most of the imaginatively reconstructed mythology of Celtica that you get from Sir James Frazer and Robert Graves forward depends on the Aryan Myth. Basically, the Aryan Myth is that militaristic super-warriors from out of the steppes of the Ukraine or parts thereabout conquered all of ancient Europe, subjugated the existing natives, and displaced the pre-existing cultures with their own. The key piece of evidence for this is that we all speak Indo-European languages. It did happen this way in India; from this it was generalized that it happened this way everywhere else. Unfortunately, nothing you'd expect to find as predicted by this hypothesis of huge conquests and displacements has actually been found. It seems likelier now that Indo-European languages have always been spoken through most of Europe. Now there are two ways you can spin the Aryan Myth. One goes "Hooray for the Aryan warrior Supermen! They must have been obviously superior to the people they conquered. We should all clasp their virtue to our hearts." We know where this belief system leads from history. It unfortunately appeals to the desire for heroes to worship and to exalt your ancestors, and so it is dangerously tempting even if it is bunk. The other way to spin the Aryan Myth is that the lost paradise of ancient Europe was destroyed by the conquerors. This is where the Universal Unitarian Goddess comes in; according to this view, there was an idyllic, pacifist, goddess-worshipping "matriarchal" utopia, which was unfortunately helpless to defend itself, and which the invading "patriarchs" destroyed. There is even less evidence for this than there is for the Aryan Myth itself. But it appeals to the near-universal belief in lost paradises, and so it is dangerously tempting even if it is all malarkey. It should be fairly obvious that these two versions of the Aryan Myth are two sides of the same coin. To perpetuate the Aryan Myth is to perpetuate something dangerously seductive and false. Fortunately, the Aryan Myth isn't true one way or another. Unfortunately, it is a myth --- a story that people have hung their religious and social values on, so that it is branded into some people's brains even if it isn't true. Best thing you can do is to be aware of the Aryan Myth, and recognise it when you see it.

littleneptune	11 May 2003
Aerin: Please don't misunderstand my use of the word 'tainted'--it was certainly not meant as an attack on the English tarot traditions! I was referring to english LANGUAGE books and was expressing my frustration at being unable to find different cultural takes on this subject. I need a broader understanding of tarot now. I feel at this point in my studies that I've reached a learning plateau, where every "new" interpretation of a card seems to be a variation on the one before, all leading back to Crowley, Waites, and the Golden Dawn (exaggerated, but I'm sure you know what I mean). This leads to an atmosphere where there appears to be one 'true' meaning or interpretation, which of course is inaccurate. I feel that the original symbolism of tarot was changed in order to suit a few occultists, some of whom I don't especially agree with, so I am searching for a different 'truth' and I can't find it! Why is noone (or hardly anyone) discussing the French take on tarot? Or the Italian? Wouldn't doing this lead to the learning of an even greater, more universal 'truth'? One thing I've learned from postmodernism is that there is not one history, but many histories. I'm having a hard time getting at these other stories. (ps. I love the British, I have lots of family there :))

catboxer	11 May 2003
Ihcoyc: I love reading your stuff, and I find in particular that your opening post on this thread is based on dead-on and entirely accurate observation. I would only disagree with the description of the differences you point out as "vague." They are neither vague nor subtle. It seems to me that any understanding of tarot needs to take into account the intentions of the originators of the deck(s), and that one of the objectives of our study here is reconstruction of those intentions. I'm afraid I don't go along with the "more than one history" approach. I was born too long ago to be a postmodernist. Oh, yeah...one more thing. There's one more Dummett book you didn't mention -- "The Visconti-Sforza Tarot Cards." It's out of print but fairly readily available. His treatment of the individual cards (which comprises most of the book) isn't the greatest, but the introduction is a killer 15-page essay on origins.

Rusty Neon	11 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by ihcoyc Sédillot occasionally speaks of "archetypes," but spends a lot more time carefully discussing the symbols actually present on each card. She relates them, not only to the Hebrew alphabet --- something fairly distant in most of the more recent English traditions --- but also to the Latin alphabet, something I have never seen anyone do in English. If you wish to see Sédillot wax more Jungian, there's always her book on the TdM Major Arcana _Un Chemin vers l'Inconscient: Psychologie jungienne et images du Tarot_ (Dervy, 1998). P.S. As a general note, I'm not sure if one can generalize on the contemporary French tarot tradition from one author, just as one could generalize about the modern Anglo-American tarot tradition from Pollack's _Seventy-Eight Degrees_ (for want of a better example).

Cerulean	12 May 2003
Okay, I think...but don't exactly know...that some of the discussion here gently touched upon looking at the following (please correct if wrong): ----------------------------------------------------------------- - Marseilles and French-language discussion of some of the iconography--most likely prior to the 1800s - Later French Occult/Estoteric traditions that might have arisen out of Etteilla designs, after the early 1800s - English traditions of the later 1800s that seem to be centered on Rider-Waite-Smith style and celtic overtones from Yeats, etc. - Mentions of other European regional slants of tarot origins or ways of looking at history - Mentions of English language sources that might be slanted one way or another in terms of tarot origins/iconography.* ------------------------------------------------------------------- Just to add a few pennies of thought that might align English-American readers who want to do some research: *I'm alongside Catboxer's suggestion for the Michael Dummett book on the Visconti cards that I also mentioned earlier. If one also wants a rather tight look at card symbolism, did someone else mention Robert O' Neill's text? It used be available online I think, through links of TarotPassage to Nina Lee Braden's old pages? Now my own conjectures follow...the bias being Italian designs. Now there's a gently biased view from my study group that playing cards and tarocchi games were highly influenced by courts in Ferarra. One focus is from 1441 onwards...right now they are touching on O'Neill's paragraph of an Ecumenical Council of Ferarra-Florence and social history. They are exploring the idea of how pivotal Greek scholars, other Eastern European influences and maybe even the Hebrew-language population resident in Ferarra might have influenced such pastimes. What I would like to add, is that throughout the 1400's, Ferarra had moved from favoring the French King Charlemagne epics they imported by the boatload in Niccolo and Leonello D'Estes time. After Duke Borso, they took to writing their own more Arthurian and Crusuade-oriented romantic epics. Matteo Maria Boiardo and his literary successors had this slant, thinking they were taking off from French ideas. MMBoiardo's earlier tarocchi poem is being studied...but the translation is ongoing and the mix of courtly love, Biblical, Greco-Roman and gaming are suggestive of how a regional Italian court would continually play with concepts. I think many people who enjoy European history topics will find much scope of conjecture in historical tarocchi designs because they seemed to flexible reflections of gaming, art and other tastes of their time. At the moment, the best known examples of minatures in tarocchi patterns seem to be from Milan. The card Pierpont Morgan pattern reassembled seems the greatest surviving early collection of 22 triumphs, 16 courts and 40 suited minors. Many art or tarocchi designs from Milan, Florence, Venice (even Rome?) might depend on the ruling family's background and art tastes. Our look backwards might say it's both late medieval hodge-podges, sometimes it's brillant Renaissance innovation. Sorry if I wandered off topic. Mari_Hoshizaki

Aerin	14 May 2003
Thank you for your responses - this is really interesting! I am in the 'each to their own' camp, with the caveat that the result isn't actually harmful (in the sense of diminishing people) e.g. ihcoyc's example of the Aryan myth as interpreted by Nazi-ism. Graves (for example) was not precisely a great historian, and a lot of his ideas e.g. the Celtic Tree Calendar are just that, his ideas. I do think that knowing historical information is interesting and useful, I don't think that just because someone has some new ways of interpreting things that means they are less valuable than an older way of interpreting things. Ideas and understandings evolve, as do mythologies and belief systems. (And I'd love to know more about pre-Christian and pre-Roman Britain beliefs - because they certainly did exist even if not in precisely the way that people would like to think they did. I'm deeply suspicious of most books on the subject from a realism point of view, because I know how easy it is to be selective with evidence to support a particular argument. I don't have time to research original material myself.) littleneptune, I agree that the more different approaches you have access to, the better: my personal approach would be to take what I liked from any of them and leave the rest behind. I'm not saying that's 'right', just that for me that's useful. (I still leave behind the Egyptian occult stuff, I don't get on with it at all.) I have the Sally Reynolds book on Jung and Tarot, and while it uses the Marseilles images, it is a colleaction of the myths and stories around each Major Arcana character as she sees them. So I wouldn't say it would help particularly with what you are looking for. Aerin

Kiama	14 May 2003
Well, as a Brit with a tendency towards 'Celtica', I feel the need to defend what I love dearlu. ;) (If nothing else, it'll add a little extra to this discussion! :D) What ihoyc views as Celtica is what I do not. When I speak of Celtica, I am talking about getting down to the grass roots of what we have as evidence of this culture... The texts themselves. The Mabinogion, the Tain bo Cuailgne, and the Book of Invasions are the original texts I am speaking of here. I've never read the Golden Bough or White Goddess in my life (And from what I've heard, the White Goddess is largely misinformed.) They are not Celtica. Anybody who wishes to study Celtica really needs to study the original texts I mentioned above, otherwise we end up like certain authors I shall not name, who insist on telling lies about what the Celts were... (According to one such author, the Celts worshipped a Triple Goddess! Grrrrrrr...) And the great thing about Celtica is that it is also so closely linked and intermingled with early Christianity, that we can also add Christian symbolism to our uderstanding of Tarot aswell... When we read the above texts, we find within them the same cycle of myths, the same general outline of all other myths around, focussing on the same themes and concepts. The Tarot, imo, is a map of the Universe, the human understanding of it especially, and thus, these myths can be applied to it. True, there was never originally any Celtica involved in the Tarot, but times change... People change... And so what we add to the Tarot changes too. Some of us, as Aerin said, prefer to ascribe the Egyptian retelling of the Universe to the Tarot. Some adore the Roman/Grecian stories, and indeed, I can see why. Here we find a plethora of wonderful myths that can easily be applied to teh Tarot... Persephone descending into the Underworld is the High Priestess to a tee... And Demeter! What an Empress! Now, peopel scoff at 'archetypes', and I suppose that term is getting rather worn out now, but the reason for this is because... IT WORKS! It is a term we use to describe the common themes and concepts picked up on in nearly all mythological cycles, no matter what culture they are. Thus, we end up with the archetype of Mother, Father, Wounded Healer, Spiritual Searcher... Why? Simply because they are such a huge part of the human understanding of the Universe. Nearly every single mythology has them, and thus they are applied to the Tarot, because, as I previously mentioned, the Tarot can be seen as a veritable map of human understanding of the Universe. And where would the map be if it had such important landmarks missing? If we found a new term for 'archetype', I'm sure people wouldn't scoff so much. It works, and that's all that matters. It may not be fashionable any longer... But it works, and people understand it. Now, every single mythology is there for interpretation, and when we interpret it, we find that... Surprise surprise! It fits into the Tarot's outline rather nicely. Because, imo, the Tarot can be seen as yet another mythology in itself, in that it too holds within it the same concepts and themes as other mythologies. When we look at the Norse myths, and then the Greek ones, we sit there and say 'Oh, those two bits there are similar... They convey the same meaning/theme/concept!' And we grow in our understanding of myths, of the world, and of our own undestanding of it. We do exactly the same thing with the Tarot and Celtica... 'Oh, those two bits there are similar...!' And we add that knowledge to our storehouse of other bits of knowledge, where all our other comparisons sit... The more we do this, the greater our understanding of the archetypes (There's that word again! :eek:) in the Tarot becomes, and thus the greater our understanding of the Tarot itself, and the Universe... Quote: Thank whatever god you choose that there isn't any Celtica in here! No all-consuming primitive blood goddesses, just the relatively well-groomed Greek and Roman ones. It doesn't matter that the Celtic world had 'primitive blood goddesses'... It still had the same archtypes (:eek:) as the Greek world and Roman world, with it's immoral deities who went around having sex with everything in sight, and regularly raped others. (Excuse that sentence there, but if we're gonna pick up on the less sweet parts of Celtic mythology, we'd better pick up on the same parts of the Greek/Roman ones!) And if we look at the Celtic mythology, we also find kind, gentle goddesses... Brighid for example. Bloduewedd. (Okay so she cheated on her husband, but then she didn't really have a say in the matter when she was married to him!) Rhiannon. Arianrhod. Anyhow, I've gabbled on for long enough. There are two types of Celtica: The original, and the, to put it bluntly, inaccurate one. Please don't confuse the two! :D And archetypes aren't so bad either. Kiama

jmd	14 May 2003
With particular syncretic eyes, one may very well see in various myths and sagas the archetypal forms one seeks... This is one of the great achievements - and downfall - of the Golden Dawn and its successors... and one of the differences between the two traditions this thread indicates.

littleneptune	14 May 2003
I personally do not see myths in the tarot, and don't find them useful in my studies. Although the historical facts concerning the exact meaning of the original tarot symbols are sketchy at best, I prefer to look to the iconography itself (and the card name) as my reference. From what I can determine, the tarot icons were based on REAL PEOPLE, REAL EVENTS at the time of their creation, not myths. I find that a lot of the mythical and 'archetypal' symbolism imposed onto the tarot (including much of the popular occult symbolism) actually limits my understanding of what a particular card means in real life. It comes with too much 'baggage' and a too-subjective slant filled with moral biases that don't work for me at all. I like a tarot system that is symbolically neutral, and I prefer to 'keep it real' if I can.

Kiama	14 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune I personally do not see myths in the tarot, and don't find them useful in my studies. Although the historical facts concerning the exact meaning of the original tarot symbols are sketchy at best, I prefer to look to the iconography itself (and the card name) as my reference. From what I can determine, the tarot icons were based on REAL PEOPLE, REAL EVENTS at the time of their creation, not myths. I don't think any of us were trying to say that the cards originally were based on myths... In fact, I seriously doubt any of the posters in this thread would try to assert such a thing at all. What I, personally, was saying was that we apply different myths to the cards. And thereby we add to our 'storehouse of understanding' of the cards, since each time we find another take on a particular card (eg. a different culture's idea of what a Mother is: The Empress card). To say that mythology prevents a further understanding of how Tarot relates to real life is to do somewhat of a disservice to mythology, which is, as I said in the above post, just another way of looking at and interpreting life. It helps us understand the way the world works, and thus we become better equipped for the real world itself. JMD: I'm not sure I understand what you were saying in your last post... My mind is frazzled because I've been revising all day. *On three... Awwwww* Kiama

Aerin	14 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama What I, personally, was saying was that we apply different myths to the cards. And thereby we add to our 'storehouse of understanding' of the cards, since each time we find another take on a particular card (eg. a different culture's idea of what a Mother is: The Empress card). To say that mythology prevents a further understanding of how Tarot relates to real life is to do somewhat of a disservice to mythology, which is, as I said in the above post, just another way of looking at and interpreting life. It helps us understand the way the world works, and thus we become better equipped for the real world itself. Kiama Kiama, thank you so much for both of your posts. This is exactly where I'm coming from. What I don't have is an in depth knowledge of Celtic legends, I love the Matthews decks and books and etc and I couldn't 'defend' them or otherwise since I don't have suffiecient background to do so. And please, please could you recommend me some Celtic books that are worth reading and accessible? I have read a translation of the Mabinogion a long time ago... Also....historians are myth makers as much as any other breed. Whatever you find out about real people was written by a real person, seen through their filters. Even original material doesn't completely help, since this too is an interpretation of what happened.... the words help to define the event. Aerin ps I love Maron Bradley's interpretations of Arthurian legends, she seemed to do a lot of research for her books. Have you read them/ what's your opinion Kiama? To me, they seemed to fit well with the Hallowquest deck

littleneptune	14 May 2003
Kiama--I'm sure that many people apply the myths to the tarot cards, but I do not wish to do this. Using the Empress as an example, I feel there is much more to this character than the Demeter myth can convey, for the empress is a ruler of an empire. One of her jobs may have been to oversee the finances of the empire, or even to call for the execution of traitor! The meaning of 'motherhood' is a popular one for this card nowadays, but I do not believe it was the sole meaning of the original card (in fact, in the early Pierpont Morgan and the Marseilles cards, there is no iconography relating to motherhood at all!). As well, the concept of an unconditionally loving, all-nurturing mother seems (to me) to be more of an ideal than a reality. The concept of 'mother' is I think a personal one. I like to leave it up to the client to decide what kind of a woman she is. Mari_Hoshizaki--thanks for your recommendations. I will try to find the Robert O'Neill text you mentioned via Tarot Passages.

ihcoyc	14 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune I personally do not see myths in the tarot, and don't find them useful in my studies. Although the historical facts concerning the exact meaning of the original tarot symbols are sketchy at best, I prefer to look to the iconography itself (and the card name) as my reference. The syncretistic impulse can lead astray, and lead to blind alleys as easily as it can enlighten. Look at the mish-mash Tacitus made of Germanic mythology by trying to assimilate it. Tacitus said that the Germans worshipped Mercury as their chief god; he meant Odin, whose chief similarity to Mercury seems to be the hat. He splits up Thor into Jupiter and Hercules. The Empress is another example of mythological references leading astray. English tradition wants to make her a fertility goddess, it seems. The French, slightly more sensibly, liken her to Athena. Neither seems to be that close to the fundie reading that would be my first take on the card: that she represents the wife of the Emperor, sovereign of the Holy Roman Empire. One starting place to deepen the meanings of this figure would be to consider the relationship between the HRE and Northern Italy in the 1300s. This is a fairly complicated and interesting history; but basically, for much of this time, Pope and Emperor were two competing forces vying for the allegiance and tribute of the area.

Umbrae	15 May 2003
It is said that myths are stories that aided our primitive ancestors to explain things they could not understand, and preserve the stories and legends of their times for future generations. When we look backwards though the tapestry of time, our views are often biased by historians. We are educated to believe that ancient man was primitive. We are wise and intelligent; after all, we have sent men to the moon. Is such a view accurate? Does it color our perspective when observing archetypes? When I was a child in school, I was taught that only man made tools. The ability to use tools defined man. Later it was found that certain apes (and even Crows and Ravens) make specific tools to aid in their ability to gather food. We were taught that the Egyptians used slave labor to build the pyramids, and that it took hundreds of years. We now find that neither was true. These are incomplete and biased views of history. We are still taught that the “Silk Road”, the interconnected roads between Asia and Europe was non-existent and established during the Han Dynasty of China (circa 200 BCE-200 ACE [officially opening in 130 bce].). Historians today credit the Chinese with planning and exploring the silk-road as early as 500 BCE. They have found the remains of Europeans (mummies) in the Taklamakan Desert. They are roughly 3,000 years old. Woops! Some account the Celts as having migrated out of India. We know the Celts were in Europe 1,500 BCE (around the same time as Moses was leaving Egypt, give or take a few decades). The timelines we have been taught are wrong. The European mummies in the Taklamakan were wearing tartans; the weave of which rivals that accomplished by modern mechanized looms. The primitive views of our ancestor’s technology are wrong. We are taught that they traded goods. We are not taught that they traded stories, myths, and legends. My point: I often state to toss the books when learning Tarot. In some cases perhaps we should toss the decks themselves. What we are taught, by authors whose intent is to sell books and perpetuate their opinions, is ego expansion. We all know Tarot was invented in the past horizon of time – and was given to us by the Gypsies…(lol...you mean...that too is wrong?). Sometimes we create our own histories and myths (Golden Dawn ‘Tradition’, and virtually all post Golden Dawn interpretive theory). Much of our history is incorrect…mix it with Tarot…I remember a thread about the Celtic Cat People…

Diana	15 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune The meaning of 'motherhood' is a popular one for this card nowadays, but I do not believe it was the sole meaning of the original card (in fact, in the early Pierpont Morgan and the Marseilles cards, there is no iconography relating to motherhood at all!). littleneptune: you are quite right here. It's the Papess (so-called High Priestess) who symbolises (amongst other things) motherhood.

Kiama	15 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune Kiama--I'm sure that many people apply the myths to the tarot cards, but I do not wish to do this. Using the Empress as an example, I feel there is much more to this character than the Demeter myth can convey, for the empress is a ruler of an empire. One of her jobs may have been to oversee the finances of the empire, or even to call for the execution of traitor! The meaning of 'motherhood' is a popular one for this card nowadays, but I do not believe it was the sole meaning of the original card (in fact, in the early Pierpont Morgan and the Marseilles cards, there is no iconography relating to motherhood at all!). As well, the concept of an unconditionally loving, all-nurturing mother seems (to me) to be more of an ideal than a reality. The concept of 'mother' is I think a personal one. I like to leave it up to the client to decide what kind of a woman she is. I agree with you that the single Demeter myth will not convey the entirety of the Empress card. Which is why I do not stick to a single myth for each card. Not only would I apply the Grek and Roman myth to this card, but I would scour Celtic, Norse, Egyptian legends aswell... And then I'd look to Kabbalah, then contemporary fiction, then psychology, Shakespeare, then the Renaissance ideas... And they'd all become mish-mashed into 'my' view of what the Empress is. So, this means that in different contexts, she becomes something different. I agree with you that one myth is stifling... But with many myths or 'ways of understanding the Universe', one can expand their knowledge, because on is quite literally finding out what other cultures/people thought of this Empress. Kiama

Kiama	15 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by ihcoyc The Empress is another example of mythological references leading astray. English tradition wants to make her a fertility goddess, it seems. The French, slightly more sensibly, liken her to Athena. Neither seems to be that close to the fundie reading that would be my first take on the card: that she represents the wife of the Emperor, sovereign of the Holy Roman Empire. It certainly would be very useful to have this type of interpretation when looking at the historical ideas behind the Empress card. But we are in the year 2003. Much of the ideas of the Renaissance do not work here anymore. Therefore we are, imo, obliged to adapt such figures as the Empress to have other connotations. Yes, as the title suggests, in earlier centuries, this card would indicate a woman who rules alongside the sovereign, orders executions, etc... But nowadays, where do women rule alongside the sovereign? In the home. They are the Mothers. Just as the Empress in the Renaissance was the 'Mother' to her subjects, so we have an Empress now who is a Mother in the more literal sense of the term. Kiama PS- I am slightly offended by the geographical differences being perpetuated here. I don't mind that we're discussing the differences between how the French and English view the Tarot, but I'd rather we didn't make value judgements based on this. "The French, slightly more sensibly..." doesn't seem very fair to those of us who don't ascribe to the French view of the cards.

littleneptune	15 May 2003
Kiama you said (quote): " But nowadays, where do women rule alongside the sovereign? In the home. They are the Mothers. Just as the Empress in the Renaissance was the 'Mother' to her subjects, so we have an Empress now who is a Mother in the more literal sense of the term." In my time, I have seen woman Prime Ministers in both Canada and England (not to mention the Queen of England!) There are also many famous women artists, musicians, writers, academics, business owners (I could go on and on). To say that the home is the 'domain' where a woman rules is, I think, an extremely limited (and limiting) view. I see the Empress more as a symbol of female authority and status, responsible leadership and perhaps parenting, just as I see the Emperor as the male equivalent. Both rule over others, hopefully with kindness and mercy, but not necessarily.

ihcoyc	15 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama PS- I am slightly offended by the geographical differences being perpetuated here. I don't mind that we're discussing the differences between how the French and English view the Tarot, but I'd rather we didn't make value judgements based on this. "The French, slightly more sensibly..." doesn't seem very fair to those of us who don't ascribe to the French view of the cards. FWIW, I didn't mean to pay the French view of Empress as Athena that large a complement; only that it seems a bit closer to the mark to me than having the Empress as Demeter. For me, the Empress is Mathilda of Canossa, who reconciled the Emperor Henry IV with Pope Gregory, though technically she was not the Empress. The Emperor and the Pope were fighting as they always were during this time, and the Pope had excommunicated Henry, who stood for three days and nights barefoot outside Mathilda's place begging the Pope to listen to him.

littleneptune	15 May 2003
ihcoyc--that is an excellent link that you provided. I also came across it some time ago as I was struggling to reconcile the meaning of the original Empress with the newer interpretation. After reading the long list of real-life Empresses and their courageous (and sometimes horrific) acts, I will NEVER be able to relate this card with the long-suffering, all-nurturing, unconditionally-loving 'mother' archetype that is so popular nowadays!

Kiama	15 May 2003
littleneptune: What I meant was that in the original decks, there wasn't really a Mother figure. The Mother, at the time when the decks we are discussing were popular, wasn't really thought of as important at all, so the Empress' side of the ruler (Which would include more modern business women, prime-ministers, etc) was there, with nothing else. Now, in modern times, the Mother is becoming a very important and highly respected part of life, and the home is another place where a woman can rule, just as in the Renaissance, ruling in court was wonderful... Now we also have ruling in the home as being respected. Ah I give up. I'm not explaining myself at all well these days. And why am I always in the minority in these kinds of debates? I always seem to end up with around 4 people all debating against me, and there's little me, all on my own, with nobody to help me... :( ;) oh, and before I move on... littleneptune, you say the popular Empress is 'long-suffering', and say the other Empress is courageous. I would not assign 'long-suffering' to the popular Empress at all. Why is she long-sffering? ANd believe me, the popular Empress is very courageous. And just think about a Mother for a while... Well, I'll think of my Mum anyway. She was a very nice woman. I had a great Mum basically. But when I was bad or broke a rule... There was hell to pay. Just as, in the 'olden times' the Empress would punish her subjects for breaking the rules. A Mum these days has to have heart, but also has to be firm and sometimes go against the very nature of what it feels like to have a child, and punish that child. Please do not think that the popular Empress most of us know from the Tarot is some namby-pamby perpetually loving and sweetness-and-light woman. Kiama

littleneptune	15 May 2003
Kiama--you're a strong person with strong ideas, but you're also a kind person (I've read some of your other posts!) You don't need someone to help you, and that's exactly my point with the Empress. She is a strong woman, a powerful woman, a knowledgeable woman, she doesn't need anyone to help her, for she helps others by taking responsibility. She could be a mother, or she could be a career-woman. We don't have to relegate her to the home to rule, although that may be one of the places she does have influence. The popular interpretation of the Empress that I come across often is that she symbolizes unconditional 'motherly' love, while the Emperor is 'strict ruling power/father'. I don't believe all mothers love unconditionally, and I have seen fathers who are much more nurturing than their wives, and play just as big a role in the loving and raising of children. I think we need to BROADEN the meanings here to include both interpretations, rather than narrow them down to one simplistic view. P.S. You say that the early decks depicted the ruling empress, and not the mother. In the Cary-Yale Visconti, you will see both the ruling Empress and Emperor depicted with their children. They are BOTH powerful AND nurturing.

Kiama	16 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune The popular interpretation of the Empress that I come across often is that she symbolizes unconditional 'motherly' love, while the Emperor is 'strict ruling power/father'. I don't believe all mothers love unconditionally, and I have seen fathers who are much more nurturing than their wives, and play just as big a role in the loving and raising of children. I think we need to BROADEN the meanings here to include both interpretations, rather than narrow them down to one simplistic view. You will find that many people who hold the 'popular interpretation' of these two cards will apply them to both men and women and vice-versa. At least personally, whilst I see the Empress card as representing nurturing and creativity, I know that it those themes can be applied to men. The pregnancy thing for modern decks is not literal, but representative of the creative process of human go through when starting new things/projects. In the same way, when we talk of the Emperor, whilst this card does embody what have been traditionally held to be more masuline qualities of leadership and power, these are only concepts and essentially aren't laden with any gender-judgements unless one actually takes the images in the cards literally. (Which I don't.) So, I don't see the need to change what the Empress means to fit in with the fact that 'not all mothers love unconditionally', and nor do I see the need to change the meaning of the Emperor to fit the fact that 'not all men are like that and some do the homely thing nowadays'. All I see the need for here is our understanding of the fact that the cards represent cocepts, not gender attributions. Kiama

littleneptune	16 May 2003
Kiama-- the terms 'mother' and 'father' ARE gender specific, and they are popular meanings for the Empress and Emperor. They refer to real people, not just intellectual concepts. Any qualities other than literally conceiving and giving birth to children are imposed onto the meaning of the card based on qualities that you (or Waite, or Crowley, etc) have decided upon personally. I happen not to agree with these subjective definitions. I have no idea how a woman could 'father' a project as opposed to 'giving birth to it'. And in any case, there is nothing innately 'motherly' about an empress, in the sense of nurturing, or creativity, etc. I take my definition from the historic origins of the cards and the name. You must take your definitions from some other source.

firemaiden	16 May 2003
Well, it seems between French and English traditions, we have some "vaguer" differences, and then we have some "glaring" differences. One of these which "glare" is of course that the English tradition is RWCS-centric, whereas Ze Frrrrrrrench are Marseille-centric. (Rightly so, of course, hi hi hi) The Empress finds herself fairly torn between the two traditions and doesn't know where to turn. For personal reasons, which will one day be the stuff of six tawdry novels, I have advised her to go back to France, where Philippe Camoin has been kind enough to give her green eyes. She will leave that namby-pamby field of wheat behind, and reclaim her crown, her sceptre and ferocious eagle shield, along with her brilliant red gown.

ihcoyc	16 May 2003
In Italy in the fifteenth century, one almost constant source of conflict was between the partisans of the Pope and the partisans of the Holy Roman Emperor. Every little duchy and city-state more or less had to side cautiously with one authority or the other. Northern Italy was where these two usually ended up duking it out, and it's probably unlikely you'd meet anybody who had not chosen a side, and most were prepared to switch. They were more or less constantly at each other's throats. This is an aspect of having both the Pope and Emperor in the tarot deck that few seem to comment on. Could it be that the Papess is there partially to provide balance, to be the female counterpart to the Pope so that it isn't two on one?

Aerin	17 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by ihcoyc In Italy in the fifteenth century, one almost constant source of conflict was between the partisans of the Pope and the partisans of the Holy Roman Emperor. Every little duchy and city-state more or less had to side cautiously with one authority or the other. Northern Italy was where these two usually ended up duking it out, and it's probably unlikely you'd meet anybody who had not chosen a side, and most were prepared to switch. They were more or less constantly at each other's throats. This is an aspect of having both the Pope and Emperor in the tarot deck that few seem to comment on. Could it be that the Papess is there partially to provide balance, to be the female counterpart to the Pope so that it isn't two on one? For some reason, your post struck me as a kind of metaphor for some of the discussions in this thread ;) I do not like choosing sides when I can see a merit in two different perspectives, and I don't think that a preference for one perspective always means having to make the other one wrong in some way. My personal Empress could, I'm sure, find a way of balancing the Pope and the Emperor 'sides' and birthing a new approach. Some way back someone said that understanding different traditions was a way of deepening knowledge of the cards, and that's where I am still coming from. The person I know actually owns properties all over the world, and manages to relate her ways to the culture she is in wherever she is staying. littleneptune, out of interest I've worked in an organisation which happily used the term 'birthing a project' in relation to male project managers and leaders as well as female (more male than female). Aerin ps so how does the Italian tradition relate?

littleneptune	17 May 2003
Aerin--You have heard some people happily state something. Does this make it truth? Just because a viewpoint is popular does not make it necessarily correct (think about the 'popular' viewpoint regarding Jews in Germany during WWll, or the 'popular' views about African-Americans during the slavery days in America!). I'd like to think that the tarot could reflect something slightly broader and more 'universal' than simply popular (or personal) opinion. And if this is not possible, I will look to the cards' origins and title for some guidance, for that is actually the only 'truth' the tarot can convey.

Diana	17 May 2003
littleneptune: Obviously, I agree with all you have said here. People tend to forget that the English tarot tradition didn't just spring up from nowhere. Mr. Waite didn't wake up one morning and say: "Hey! I think I'm going to create 78 cards and call it.... hmmm... let me think. Tarot! That's a great word!". He based his Tarot on something that has existed for hundreds of years (possibly even more, but that is another story). Of course, he changed it for very specific purposes - for the Golden Dawn purposes and rituals. The true origins of Tarot are lost in the mists of time. But the farther back we can humanly go, the more we will understand what the messages were meant to convey. As with the Greek and Roman myths, they do not lose their quality just because they are old. They are as real today as they were yesterday. The essence of Tarot does not change along with modern fads and fashions. And it is by remaining as true as possible to the meanings that were conveyed in the oldest Tarot decks that we know of, can we really grasp that essence.

Aerin	18 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune Aerin--You have heard some people happily state something. Does this make it truth? Just because a viewpoint is popular does not make it necessarily correct (think about the 'popular' viewpoint regarding Jews in Germany during WWll, or the 'popular' views about African-Americans during the slavery days in America!). errr..... I thought that is what I was saying. Obviously not. I am getting an 'I'm right you are wrong' vibe from some of this thread. And I don't like it. Especially since I haven't (yet) seen any evidence that e.g. a so-called 'English' perspective is actually causing harm to any person or persons. Beyond that, I choose to take what I want from anything that I find useful to me. I don't say that's right or wrong or truthful or dishonest or makes anyone else wrong. It's what I choose to do. Understanding tarot origins and also the evolution of later ideas is, for me, part of that process. I am not of the opinion that any one perspective is righter than any other. And I want to both understand and respect where everyone is coming from. If that is deemed impossible or dishonest then I'm very very very sad. I don't care if something is popular, unpopular, sky blue pink, blah blah. All I care is that it is USEFUL and respectful of other human beings. Aerin ps my husband (much to my distress) once brought an entire dinner party to a halt by raising the holocaust issue with respect to someone arguing that everything in a culture agreed by that culture should be seen as right. This is not a recommended approach, although it did raise the issue of where to draw a line and everything (socially I mean) ended up being OK. My line is the respectful of other human beings one. I don't see that issue being pertinent here as I have said above.

Kiama	18 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune Kiama-- the terms 'mother' and 'father' ARE gender specific, and they are popular meanings for the Empress and Emperor. I don't think you understood fully my previous post. You talk later on in this thread about how just because something is of popular opinion doesn't make it right. Please apply this now to these two terms. Popular opinion makes mother and father integral parts of the Empress and Emperor, true. But my other post was basically saying that if you don't like this, change it. One can take away the literal 'mother' from the Empress, and just take into it the attributes of a mother. Whether we like it or not, the attributes of a mother are there. The same with the father. Please re-read my previous post. Quote: They refer to real people, not just intellectual concepts. Any qualities other than literally conceiving and giving birth to children are imposed onto the meaning of the card based on qualities that you (or Waite, or Crowley, etc) have decided upon personally. And let us just wonder for a while why I decided to 'impose' those meanings on the cards... As I said before, here we find ourselves in the year 2003. No longer are men expected to be patriacrchal rulers and authority. No longer are women expected to be the opposite. Therefore, we have no grounds anymore for an addiction to the 'historical' way of seeing the cards. Have you noticed how any religion which remains the same over centuries becomes stagnant and fails? I'm not saying Tarot is a religion, but if it stays the same, centuries later than it was first originated, it will fail. That is why we now have 'popular opinions' of the cards: That is why for many people in this day and age, the Empress no longer means what it did for the Italian Renaissane nobility. The Tarot is not a stable or stagnant thing, and the intricate beauty of it, imo, lies in the fact that we can apply anything to it, and still come to a higher understanding of the cards through that. This is why it has survived. Quote: I happen not to agree with these subjective definitions. I have no idea how a woman could 'father' a project as opposed to 'giving birth to it'. Here we are getting to mere wordplay, which is useless I'm afraid. 'Fathering a project' and 'giving birth to it' are exactly the same thing, with gender attached to it. What I'm saying is that we do not need to attach gender to it. Notice how both those gender-specific terms are synonymous with 'to create a project', which we could regard as neuter. So if I were to attach 'to create a project' to the Empress, we have no need of gender. Quote: And in any case, there is nothing innately 'motherly' about an empress, in the sense of nurturing, or creativity, etc. I take my definition from the historic origins of the cards and the name. You must take your definitions from some other source. This is something that depends entirely on one's definition of 'nurturing'. I would contend that an Empress in the historical way was very nurturing towards whatever she ruled, whether it be the province or kingdom... Kiama

baba-prague	18 May 2003
"What ihoyc views as Celtica is what I do not. When I speak of Celtica, I am talking about getting down to the grass roots of what we have as evidence of this culture... The texts themselves. The Mabinogion, the Tain bo Cuailgne, and the Book of Invasions are the original texts I am speaking of here. I've never read the Golden Bough or White Goddess in my life (And from what I've heard, the White Goddess is largely misinformed.) They are not Celtica. " Maybe I shouldn't be going back to this earlier part of the thread, but I just wanted to throw in my own viewpoint. I HAVE read the Golden Bough and The White Goddess - and even Yeat's A Vision, but I've also read the Tain, Mabinogion etc. I agree with Kiama, you have to read the original texts. However, I'd like to defend Yeats and Graves a little. I think they get misunderstood. Both were poets - I think their texts need to be read as poetic works, not as history. As history they are nonsense (mostly) but as pieces of literature they are very evocative. Do try reading them, there is a lot there - just don't do an 'Eric Von Danniken" and take it as an account of something that actually happened. Both books are really quite dreamlike, and are best (in my opinion) read in that way. Anyway, I'm Irish and the "Celtic Myth" is a part of Irish history. Myths (even ones based on very little fact) are powerful and can change things. Just as long as we remember that they are myths! (by the way, I was really surprised to realise there is a lot of "Celtica" going on in Czech - a huge "Celtic revival" movement. Sadly some of it is excited by things like "Riverdance" - a bit of mock-culture if ever there was one). Okay - hope that was at least vaguely on-thread. Karen

Kiama	18 May 2003
I object to this. You raise the analogy of the ww2 Holocaust. Well, you do not bother to raise any analogies such as 'Killing is wrong.' This is a popular opinion. Woudl you go against it? 'Education for our children is essential'. Popular opinion. Not necessarily true, but useful. 'War in Iraq is illegal'. Popular opinion. Truth. (Notice I do not say 'right' or 'wrong', but illegal.) 'The family unit is a good thing'. Popular opinion. True. And look at how history has the potential to be false... Look at how the Tarot's history has been mish-mashed and given false statements. People say it's history. Does that make it true? Nope. "History is written by the victors". Remember that please. Quote: I'd like to think that the tarot could reflect something slightly broader and more 'universal' than simply popular (or personal) opinion. And if this is not possible, I will look to the cards' origins and title for some guidance, for that is actually the only 'truth' the tarot can convey. What you see as 'popular opinion' may very well be 'universal'. That is why we have what we commonly call 'archetypes'. (Ack that word again!) They are universal 'things' or 'concepts' attached to the images in the Tarot. Need I say this one more time: We are in the year 2003. Not 1450 Renaissance Italy. Some of the images and 'true meanings' of the cards no longer apply to us. Kiama

firemaiden	18 May 2003
With all due respect to all of you, I think this thread is like a train speeding toward a downed bridge. I am going to have to report this one to Messieurs Chirac and Blair. I think the original subject of the thread was on a different track. While Aeclectic is an anglophonic* forum, those of us who enjoy reading French have been discovering with pleasure, that there is a whole new world of thought about the tarot across the channel; and we were interested in defining simply what that difference may be. I remember reading somewhere (where?) that the French have the unique distinction of an unbroken tradition of playing and using tarot cards since the beginning. (I don't know if this is true, I just remember I read it). What are the ramifications of that, I wonder? (*some of us are anglo-saxons (myself) impersonating french speakers, some of us are french speakers impersonating english speakers, some of us were french in a last life, but are currently anglo-saxon, and vice-versa. )

jmd	18 May 2003
A thread with so many possibilities... but is a battle subtly brewing? And will the victors be able to write as they wish? There are many strands to this thread which forge through - I wonder if the main point is getting a little lost, however. The Tarot appears to have various 'traditions'. Two very important ones, for a variety of reasons, are also centred around two European languages: the French and the English. Each of these build on what others have said before them, especially within the language. In addition, certain decks and ways of viewing them become more popular. Prior to the 20th century, it seems that the Eteilla was the dominant popular Francophonic deck, with much that this entails. Due, in large part, to E. Levi, interest arose anew in both England and France. In France, both the style of writing and the decks which arose gave more importance to Marseille type decks and penetration into Tarot iconographic antecedents, especially with regards to its possible esoteric provenance. In England, two different impulses appear to have played through: the first is the high syncreticism living in people and esoteric orders with Tarot interest; the other is the encouragement in the proliferation of independence of deck design (the two, actually, go hand-in-hand). From these differing impulses appears these two 'traditions', offering each's strength...

Diana	18 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama We are in the year 2003. Not 1450 Renaissance Italy. Some of the images and 'true meanings' of the cards no longer apply to us. [/b] I disagree entirely. Like I said in another post, to make an analogy that goes even further back in time: The Roman and Greek myths (for instance) are just as current themes today as they were then. And in my opinion, it is the same with Tarot. Universal truths do not change with time. Divine order does not change. Astrophysical laws do not change. The same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Before Abraham was, I was. etc. etc. etc.

jmd	18 May 2003
(oops, sorry firemaiden, I didn't see your post... I think they are both enjoying the tradition of French winemaking :))

littleneptune	18 May 2003
I think what we have here is a difference of opinion regarding what tarot is. Some people feel (like many of the early occultists) that the original symbols of the tarot can be changed to reflect whatever qualities one wishes them to reflect. I personally am searching for a more eternal kind of symbol, one which does not change over time. I personally don't see myths as being relevent to today's culture, but I know that some things, like Death never change. We may have different ways of depicting death today, but the event itself does not change. So I look to the original iconography for the original symbol. Otherwise, tarot becomes a chaotic mess of conflicting meanings (as it clearly has done here), depending on whose tradition you follow. Now we are having problems with the symbol of the Empress and the Emperor. Looking to the original iconography, I see the symbols as meaning something beyond mothering and fathering. And further, I have a different view of a mother (and father) than some others do. I do not believe there are specific "attributes of a mother" that can be relied upon. Some mothers are nurturing and kind, others are bossy and neglectful. So how can we agree on the Empress? Noone on this forum, including myself, is right or wrong, nor is any one culture's take right or wrong. I have no personal stake in either culture's take on the tarot, as I see them BOTH appropriating the Italian iconography, and basically making up the card definitions to suit their own mystical and philosophical views. However, I find this a dangerous approach to tarot because it ends up in arguments, like this one, over the meanings of the cards. There is no reason to take offense or get angry. We are discussing symbols here, and philosophical differences should be tolerated and discussed. If we cannot do this, we are not enlightened, and we have no business using the tarot to advise other people about their lives.

Diana	18 May 2003
Again I have to agree here with littleneptune. (It's nice to agree with someone for a change! :D ). If one changes the meanings to suit one's particular wants and needs, then one is no longer dealing with Tarot. One can have an absolutely marvellous 78 Oracle deck, which is vaguely founded on the Tarot, but it is no longer Tarot. There is nothing wrong with Oracle decks. Even those that have 22 Majors, 56 Minors and 4 suits. But does that make them Tarot? I do not think so. Is a frozen pizza with artificial flavour a pizza? The question is highly debatable. But it's modern. :(

Kiama	18 May 2003
littleneptune: You still don't seem to understand what I've been trying to say, and I'm not going to harangue you anymore since this is just not going anywhere. All I shall say is that you are still going on about the differences between mothers, and this bears no relation at all to what I am trying to say about the Empress, simply because we are not talking about mothers with that card, but with attributes. Diana: With all due respect, what you say is an entirely personal and subjective opinion, relying largely on how you view change and Tarot. I personally disagree with it, simply because I probably have a different idea of what Tarot and change (Not to mention human understanding and the Universe) is. One has not 'changed the cards meanings to fit ones needs and wants', but simply adapted them, added bits to them here and there, so that we can better understand them. We haven't changed them completely. What is wrong with a little adaptation? It's just the same as if I were to read a book, then re-tell the story, but in my own words, or in a language that a foreign person could understand. It's still the same story however. By the way, you say that 'Universal truths do not change over time' and that astrophysical laws, etc do not change either. This is enturely true, but unrelated, imo, to Tarot, since I believe one's understanding, application, and interpretation of images can change over time. Firemaiden: Thankyou for pointing out that this thread has gone off track. As a response, this shall be my last post in this thread to do with the Empress etc, since it's going nowhere like that and people just don't seem to get what I'm trying to say anyway. What started me on this thread was the way the English tradition was being judged to be 'less' than the French tradition, and how the Gods which I personally feel closest to have been slandered. 'Primitive blood goddesses'... A total misunderstanding of where we get our knowledge of the Celts from and how it is not just a 19th century Romantic mish-mash... value judgements which in my opinion are not called for. True, the French tradition of Tarot is probably wonderful (It is a shame my French is limited, or I'd be looking into it aswell!) but there is no need to put down the English tradition as 'mish mashed' or 'unfounded'. Finally, littleneptune, please do not think I am arguing with you personally. I think you are a great person, and I have enjoyed reading your posts on Aeclectic. It is not you I have a disagreement with, but with your assertions. Please don't take it personally! Kiama

catboxer	18 May 2003
The problem with a debate like this is that it mixes up interpretation and history, to the detriment of both. The confusion that results can lead to misunderstandings and hurt feelings. When we look at the uses to which tarot is usually put today -- divination and philosophy, I think at some point we have to admit that there's no "correct" interpretation. This is because interpretation involves combining the objective images on the cards with the subjective contents of the interpreter's personality. This is an art, not a science, and like any other art, it is in part an expression of the personality and soul of the artist, as much as it is a product of the instrument. Tarot images only take on this particular kind of meaning in combination with a human soul; no two souls are alike, and none are invalid. This is why I think it would be the height of both arrogance and ignorance for me, or anyone else to say that a particular interpretation is "wrong," or that a particular type of tarot approach is "mistaken." I have a particular distaste for stuff like "The Feminist Celtic Tarot of the Moon Goddess Cat People from Atlantis," (I think Ihcoyc came up with that one), but I certainly can't declare it wrong. I've simply seen too many people operate effectively, and with great prescience, using such tools. I might call all those cute little dragons and horned women "ahistorical," because I think I can prove they are, but wrong? Never. You guys all know me, and you know that if it ain't Visconti, Marseilles, or Soprafino, I don't mess with it. All of you know my view of history because I've repeated it here probably too many times, and I know there are some people here who would like to put my head in a guillotine because of it. (If you're one of the few who hasn't seen it, check http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7597&perpage=10&highlight=starvation blues&pagenumber=2) and go to the top of page two. But interpretation based on the highly symbolic and abstracted tarot images is general and, of course, abstact. As an activity, it has little to do with history, which is concrete and specific, not to mention unforgiving. If we get the two confused with each other, we risk stepping on one anothers' toes in ways we may regret. (Catboxer)

firemaiden	18 May 2003
I vote Catboxer for President!

Hedera	18 May 2003
Quote: I vote Catboxer for President! (Stepping over a severed head, nearly slipping in a puddle of blood, while the sound of Titans engaged in battle still rumbles in the distance....) Hear hear, Firemaiden and Catboxer! I have to admit I feel overwhelmed by all the expertise here, but every time I see someone talk about the 'original' meanings of the cards, I can't help but think that we use them in a very historically inaccurate way anyway. I mean, isn't it generally understood that tarot was initially used to play a game not unlike poker (tarocchi)? Not the way we tend to use it, for divining, self-insight-gaining, counseling etc? And also, when was the first book (that we know of) regarding the 'meanings' of the cards written? I don't think there are many documents from the 15th, 16th or even 17th century remaining that deal with tarot cards. Aren't most ideas about the 'original' meanings based on our modern way of using the cards, combined with our modern ideas about the 'historical' concepts? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I don't get into the histrionical forum much. Thinking about it, I would love to read the very fist, original LWB!

Alex	18 May 2003
Littleneptune Your have raised very good points. It may be that some people are mixing up two issues that, in my view, can be treated separately. [i am not going over it because i like to be pedantic, but because i've studied it in some detail for my work, and i think i can share it with you guys.] I think some confusion comes back to Aristotle's "categories". We can talk about a "nurturing mother" as referring to the Empress, [or papess (high priestess) if you like]. Now the elements within this description are, "nurturing", and "mother". Aristotle did not believe that they had the same ontological status. The term "nurturing" does not exist in the same way as "mother" does. In fact, "nurturing" is dependent on the term "mother" for its meaning. Thus we can say that, here, 'mother" is the substance whilst "nurturing" is merely a quality which does not exist on its own but only in relation to the subject (mother). Although substance and quality are one of ten categories identified by Aristotle it is only substance that he believed underlined everything else. For instance, if there were no "mother" then is this instance "nurturing" would have no relationship to it. How does it relate to our discussion? You are after essences, or the substance of each card. What others claim to change in relation to time and culture are the qualities. Death in its essence does not change from time to time or from culture to culture. What changes are the qualities attributed to Death. And depictions sometimes stress on the qualities rather than the essences. As long as everyone is aware that it's Death one is talking about, it matters little, if you it's dark or light, good or bad, an end or a new beginning. I think it's important to relate to the original substance of each card, but allowing for changes in the attributes, or quality of these depictions. As far as the little tolerance for divergences in opinion, it is sad to see that it's true around here. In science discussion lists, people diverge all the time. Discussion is a means to learn by exchanging opinions and information. It's a way to grow. Alex.

Alex	18 May 2003
Now cardboxer. I think there are 3 different things being mixed here: 1) essence and 2) qualities, as mentioned above, and 3) card interpretation within the context of a reading. Quote: The problem with a debate like this is that it mixes up interpretation and history, to the detriment of both. That only if people cannot appreciate a discussion, which is sad but happens. Quote: The confusion that results can lead to misunderstandings and hurt feelings. Card interpretation within the context of a reading varies either because other cards act as modifiers of that card, or because the person isn't reading the cards. It's valid not to relate to the essence of each card, if one can do it with no loss for the querent. But that does not invalidate the classical card meanings either. IF WHAT YOU READ ARE THE CARDS, then there MUST be a system of reference for you to follow. IF YOU READ something else, if you read nothing, if you are a psychic of sorts, if you lay the cards and say what you know, then the issue of card meanings are irrelevant to you. Quote: I think at some point we have to admit that there's no "correct" interpretation. This is because interpretation involves combining the objective images on the cards with the subjective contents of the interpreter's personality. This is an art, not a science, and like any other art, it is in part an expression of the personality and soul of the artist, as much as it is a product of the instrument. Tarot images only take on this particular kind of meaning in combination with a human soul; no two souls are alike, and none are invalid. Card meanings can be wrong, because each card has an essence. If you don't capture the essence of that card, it's interpretation will be wrong. IN THE SAME TIME, the card interpretation may be useful. Does it speak to the sitter, does it help? Then it's a good reading. Are the card interpretations still wrong? Yes. Wrong and right, helpful and useless, these are the comparisons we're talking about. Wrong and helpul Right and helpful wrong and useless right and useless. It takes all kinds. Quote: This is why I think it would be the height of both arrogance and ignorance for me, or anyone else to say that a particular interpretation is "wrong," or that a particular type of tarot approach is "mistaken. The worst thing re the confusion you're talking about is that people may think they have opposite opinions when they're just talking about different things. Quote: If we get the two confused with each other, we risk stepping on one anothers' toes in ways we may regret. Cheers Alex.

littleneptune	18 May 2003
Kiama-- you wrote (quote): " ... the Gods which I personally feel closest to have been slandered." Have we been talking about tarot in this thread or religion? Now I'm confused. A difficulty that I have come across in tarot discussions is that some people 'believe' in tarot, while others (myself) are simply studying the cards as symbols.

Alex	18 May 2003
Myths relate to universal experiences. The Tarot portrays universal experiences Therefore, Myth and the Tarot have a similar "function": both convey universal experiences. Kiama. I understand what you are trying to say and your arguments are sounding. Your poiny of content seems to lie more on the issue of value judgements: a conservative system is not necessarily better, or worse, than a more modern one system. I also think you have understood the difference between essence and attribute, and in a way you and I are saying a somewhat similar thing. Alex. Quote: Originally posted by Kiama I don't think any of us were trying to say that the cards originally were based on myths... In fact, I seriously doubt any of the posters in this thread would try to assert such a thing at all. What I, personally, was saying was that we apply different myths to the cards. And thereby we add to our 'storehouse of understanding' of the cards, since each time we find another take on a particular card (eg. a different culture's idea of what a Mother is: The Empress card).

Aerin	19 May 2003
Alex: I love the essence vs qualities/attribute distinction you make, that's very well put. When a card in whatever system doesn't ring true for me, it is mostly because I have an issue with the way the essence of a card is interpreted e.g. Strength in the Sacred Circle deck. lttleneptune, I got drawn into this thread in the first place because what I heard was 'French = wonderful, English = rubbish'. That's what came over to me whether it was intended or not, and I felt that my whole cultural heritage was under attack. Forget religion, I personally was responding to what I saw as some sort of cultural superiority argument which I still don't buy. Aerin

firemaiden	19 May 2003
Where ARE Chirac and Blair when you need them??? Messieurs? Can you hear me?? Are you still drinking that wine? Stop poking eachother and come down and defend the friendship between your two countries. What?? Too many decades of war you say? ...Not true! What about being allies in WWII? ... What? Chirac? WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT ENGLISH BEER??? ... Hey, hey, hey, guys, put down your wine for just a second. ... What? Blair? You dare to say that about French Cheese? ... Hold on, but you are loving it with your wine! ... Chirac, NOW you have REALLY gone too far! La vache folle indeed! ... Okay, okay, break it up guys, hand me the microphone. This program is being interrupted to bring you our latest episode of "Hercule Poirot"

Kiama	19 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune Kiama-- you wrote (quote): " ... the Gods which I personally feel closest to have been slandered." Have we been talking about tarot in this thread or religion? Now I'm confused. A difficulty that I have come across in tarot discussions is that some people 'believe' in tarot, while others (myself) are simply studying the cards as symbols. I do not 'worship' Tarot. Sorry if that came across as that. I do apply the concepts I come across within the Tarot to my spiritual understanding, but the Gods I was talking about were the Celtic Gods. I cannot recall who said it, but the Celtic Goddesses were accused of being 'all-consuming, primitive blood goddesses', and in comparison to the Greek/Roman Gods who were, in that person's opinion 'well-groomed', which in itself is not entirely true. I'm not saying that there weren't any blood goddesses in the Celtic world view, because there certainly were, but this does not mean they were all like that. Kiama

ihcoyc	19 May 2003
'Twas I who said the bit about "all consuming blood goddesses." I was speaking more in terms of atmosphere and background rather than attempting to define either Celticism or Classicism per se. What were the actual Celtic deities like? At this point it is quite difficult to say, other than to observe that they seemed to integrate fairly easily into the Roman cultural world after the conquest. I suspect that their actual deities were fairly demeure and unexciting. But to use the words "Celtic" and "goddess" in close proximity now is to conjure up a series of images that have much more to do with nineteenth and early twentieth century Romanticism than they do with ancient Gauls or Britons. Classical mythology was probably not much different from the Celtic version, but it proved harder to reinterpret the Greek and Roman gods in this vein. The Greek and Roman gods were already at home in the marble halls of traditional education, and it was difficult to remake them as chaotic deities of wild nature. The Celtic deities were pressed into service here largely because they were obscure enough at that time to be remade into something closer to the maker's own heart. At least, this is what happened in the English-speaking world. The French never seem to have gone in much for Celtic twilight, and this seems to have had an impact on their Tarot tradition as well.

Cerulean	16 Jun 2003
http://www.tarot.org.il/comparison/ A French TdM deck and both Crowley and Rider Waite with some descriptive detail and card designs are posted together. Uri Raz kindly posted these pages for educational purposes. Enjoy! I am...

Aerin	16 Jun 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Mari_Hoshizaki http://www.tarot.org.il/comparison/ A French TdM deck and both Crowley and Rider Waite with some descriptive detail and card designs are posted together. Uri Raz kindly posted these pages for educational purposes. Enjoy! I am... Oh, how very interesting. I want a Sola Busca now... Aerin

The The vaguer differences between French and English tarot traditions thread was originally posted on 25 Apr 2003 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.