How much has the Tarot changed since it's 'birth?'

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 18 May 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Kiama	18 May 2003
This came up in the thread on the 'Vague differences between French and English speaking Tarot tradition'. My friend Diana asserted that... I hope Diana doesn't mind me taking her up on yet another of her assertions (I did it previously in the historical board) but she does seem to have a knack of getting some very interesting issues into her posts, which demand a deeper exploration! :D (This is, of course, a good thing!) I got to wondering... How much has our modern Tarot deck changed? How different is, say, the Fey Tarot deck, or perhaps the Rider Waite... Robin Wood... Cosmic Tribe... Templar Tarot, from the original decks...? And does this change mean that we are no longer using a Tarot deck anymore? As Diana said, oracle decks are good, but personally, I've become rather attached to the word 'Tarot', and would like to think that is what I am using! ;) I suppose these questions rest largely on our definition of what Tarot is. You see, for me the definition is... 'The Tarot is a deck of 78 cards, with 22 Major Arcana and 56 Minor Arcana, which we use to find answers to our questions and explore situations'. My definition is largely rooted in the general basic layout of the deck, and it's uses. Thing is though, I'd quite happily call the Deva Tarot deck a Tarot deck, despite adding an extra suit... This is of course, an entirely different subject which has been discussed before, and which never came to a saitsfactory conclusion! Diana's definition of Tarot seems to rest largely on the actual images and meanings of the cards... At least that's what I'm guessing based on the above quote. I would probably respectfully disagree with Diana's statement that if we change the meanings of the cards (Eg, make the Empress a creative force instead of a powerful, ruling female sovereign as it originally was) we no longer have a Tarot deck. What does everybody else think? Kiama

truthsayer	18 May 2003
i think that b/c tarot is based on universal archetypes, this leaves tarot open to the innovativeness and intuition of the interpreter. afterall, if tarot follows a logical sequential route then it ceases to be as intuitive. logic is a left brain function. rote tarot definition inolves sequential ordering and thinking. intuition is right brain. the right brain is more connected to the unconscious mind and the deeper meanings of archetypes. every time i do a reading, i use my left brained learned understanding of tarot and compare/contrast it to what my intuition feels in the cards. today the empress may seem to represent creativity in correlation to the other cards. tomorrow she may represent female power in the big picture i see in the cards. i tend to read in context of the big picture instead of card by card meanings. when i do logical reading the end results don't feel as accurate as when i do an intuitive reading.

allibee	18 May 2003
My opinion, fwiw :O) We used to travel by horse and cart, now we travel by car .... yet we still get from A to B. Our mode of transport has evolved, that's all. The journey from Bristol to London still follows vaguely the same direction, but maybe different scenery. The journey has evolved too. Allison

Alex	18 May 2003
the substance, or essence of the Tarot has changed. We deal with a very similar problem in biological classification, and that is a problem with classification into categories. Species change with time but their essence remains the same. There are all kinds of dogs but there is an essence to "dog" that remains. So we know it's a dog, not a wolf. One species can split into two, what means the original essence has died and now we have now two different species, each with it's own essence. A dog and a wolf have a common ancestor in history. One day, this ancestral population split into two; one has become what we know call "dog", and the other has become what we call now "wolf". Like biological species, languages, and systems of knowledge in general, the Tarot can evolve. As long as it's substance remains the same, it's still the Tarot. If you give every card a meaning that is astray from it's original, essential meaning, then you don't have the Tarot anymore. You have something else. What is the essence of the Tarot? That one has to be "defined". Is this definition arbitrary? Somewhat Should it be defined having the history of the Tarot as a reference? Yes What point in history should be used as the "starting" point? You name it. I would say, the Renascence. I don't know anymore than that, to be more precise. Does a change in the Tarot that deviates from its original essence invalidate the Tarot? No, but it invalidates the classification of that deck of cards into the category "Tarot". The problem you are dealing with is purely a problem with classification systems. Is classification a science? No, it's an art. Alex. Quote: Originally posted by Kiama I would probably respectfully disagree with Diana's statement that if we change the meanings of the cards (Eg, make the Empress a creative force instead of a powerful, ruling female sovereign as it originally was) we no longer have a Tarot deck. What does everybody else think? Kiama

firemaiden	18 May 2003
Interesting that you should just happen to bring up the dog/wolf controversy, Alex. This topic could go a long way. Here is a subject that has bothered me since Jr. High biology when we learned about classifications and learned that dogs and wolf were held to be as separate species even though they can could interbreed. I asked the teacher to explain, since we had just been taught that interbreeding was definition of being the same species. She got huffy and refused to answer. I also had a half-wolf owner very angry with me once, when I tried to suggest dog and wolf were one species. "Here is the living proof" she said "of them being separate species. It is a very cruel thing indeed", she said, "to interbreed them: you end up with a creature that is half wild, half domestic, and totally confused." I don't honesly know what she meant. She was half wild. Played the cello, but dressed like a banshee. I have never yet met a dog, for cute and cuddly that he was, who didn't revert to the nature of wolf when confronted with a squirrel. What does this have to do with Tarot? not sure. Perhaps this illustrates why some of us call Tarot exhibit A Wolf, and Tarot exhit B Dog, and others get confused, and call them all Tarot.

Alex	18 May 2003
firemaden The biological species concept is that interbreeding is possible. There are other species concepts, my usage here refering to the evolutionary species concept. A species is a separate lineage with a distinct evolutionary history. It would need me to write a 5 page long article to explain you all the subtelties of this problem. What does it have to do with the Tarot? Circumscribing a category, be that biological or not, requires: 1) the reccognition of an essence 2) a consensus The Tarot is a deck of 78 cards with 4 suits; name them ________ and 22 major arcanum cards... [write here everything else you believe to be essential to a tarot deck: example: carved in wood, the hp has to have the pormegranade painted on the left side of her head, everything has to be wrtten in french, the back must... etc etc etc etc] That's the essence Do most tarot readers accept this definition? If yes, you can now separate a Tarot Deck from all other card decks. And call it "Tarot". Alex. Quote: Originally posted by firemaiden Interesting that you should just happen to bring up the dog/wolf controversy, Alex. This topic could go a long way. Here is a subject that has bothered me since Jr. High biology when we learned about classifications and learned that dogs and wolf were held to be as separate species even though they can could interbreed. I asked the teacher to explain, since we had just been taught that interbreeding was definition of being the same species. She got huffy and refused to answer. ... What does this have to do with Tarot? not sure. Perhaps this illustrates why some of us call Tarot exhibit A Wolf, and Tarot exhit B Dog, and others get confused, and call them all Tarot.

Diana	19 May 2003
Dagobert Pumperdinkle woke up one morning feeling very inspired. His friend had shown him a Tarot deck the night before, and that picture of the 9 of Swords (where the alien was sodomising a young teenage girl in her dream) had moved him to tears. He decided then and there to create his own deck. Now, he said. I need to create something that relates to everyone's daily life so people can understand it. He gazed around his kitchen while sipping his coffee. Of course, he said! People spend hours in their kitchens. I'm going to take elements from the kitchen. Coffee mugs can be the Cups element. Carving knives can be the Swords element. But darn, what can I use for Batons…. hmmm, there's nothing that looks like a baton in a kitchen. Oh but I remember, someone once told me that someone used pumpkins for Cups. So I can easily use bananas for Batons - no-one will mind. And as to the Coins or Five-Pointed-Stars (pentacles, I think my friend called them), I will use……… darn! Can't find anything. I think I'll just make different coloured cards and call them Hues. People will relate to the colours according to their own experiences and feelings in life. That'll give them a lot of freedom of expression. Now. I'm going to start with the 2 of Coffee Cups. Well, my friend told me that Cups often relate to emotions, relationships, feelings. Well, in my experience, when two people get together, they normally end up divorcing after a couple of years after having constant fights (my mother even went to the Jerry Springer show when her fourth husband beat her up every day). So I will take a photo of 2 Cups smashed on the floor. The key-word here will be "Don't ever get married." Okay, now how about the 6 of carving knives. To me, 6 is a number that reminds me of a Devil, because 666 is the Devil's number. (My friend told me that a lot of Tarot decks have estoeric (or however you spell it) stuff put on them.) So I will take a photo of 6 carving knives stuck into Jesus on a crucifix. That's devil's work. The key-word will be "Beware of the Devil." I know it doesn't look like the 6 of swords in that very old historical deck my friend had in his collection (it was called the Rider-Waite deck), but Tarot needs to evolve, for heaven's sake. Can't get stuck in the 20th Century. It's like those old fogies who listen to Mozart all day long - don't they realise that life isn't LIKE that anymore. No-one goes to symphony concerts anymore, except some old purists who refuse to acknowledge that Techno music is just the best sound around. I'll have to work on those so-called Majors. In the old historical decks, the number 2 card was called the High Priestess. Well, we don't have any of those around anymore, not in my life anyway. So I'll change that completely - doesn't relate to anything we know of. I'll put a picture of a pretty sunset with palm-trees in front of it. And I'll call it "Sunset-Sunrise". It doesn't really matter what picture I put, because anyway, my friend told me that a Tarot deck is just a question of 78 cards: 78 different pictures, divided into Majors and Minors, and four different suits just like in playing cards. What fun!

Alex	19 May 2003
Around 5000 bc, between the Danube river valley and the steppes of what is now the Ukraine, there lived small tribes of primitive farmers who all spoke the same language. Linguists call this language "Proto-Indoeuropean". Hundreds of mutually unintelligible languages, including English, German, French, Spanish, Russian, Persian, Hindi and many more, have evolved from the "Proto-Indoeuropean" language. But they didn't differentiate at once. For example, the Romance languages of French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Romanian have all evolved from Latin, one of the branches of the "Proto-Indoeuropean" language. So, we all agree that French is not Spanish and that Portuguese is not Italian, right? And neither one of them is Latin . But ALSO we can reccognize their similarity and classify them into the same group. Now, an easier way to illustrate my thoughts. We are all familiarized with toilet paper. It's a roll of thin, smooth paper of X/Y dimensions, whose function is to be used for personal hygiene in the toilet. It comes in various colors, perforated in squares or not, with added perfume or not etc. If I decide to use the toilet paper for another function, for example, clean the stove in the kitchen. Do I still call it toilet paper? Yes. Does it invalidate its usage in the toilet? No. Now I modify the toilet paper slightly in order to best perform the function of cleaning the kitchen; suppose I enlarge it's dimensions to Z/W and give a it a somewhat thicker consistency, do I still call it toilet paper? No, probably now you better call it a roll of paper towel. Why can I not call it "toilet paper"? Because you wanna make sure that, when you go to a store, and you ask for what you want, you will get it. If I use the paper towel in the toilet, substituting the toilet paper, do I still have a paper towel? Yes. If I use the paper towel in the toilet, do I invalidate it's usage in the kitchen? No. Hope that helps illustrate my point. DIANA: GREAT STORY OF YOURS! I LOVE IT!

Mimers	19 May 2003
Wow, I am loving these stories. I am laughing, and it is only 6:45am. I usually don't get 'cheerful' until around 10am. When first reading Kiama's original post I thought of the game telephone. One person thinks of a saying and whispers into the next person's ear. This goes down the line to the last person who speaks the sentence out loud. 9 times out of ten it is very different from what was actually said in the beginning. If you change something too much, too many times, you get something completely different than what you started out with. So I do agree with Diana in this respect. True Tarot goes back much further than the RW or Thoth deck. Where I believe (for I cannot truely know for sure how Diana feels about this, only assume) I differ from Diana is in the importance of reading with only the original decks or those not straying far from it. By this I mean the Marseilles deck. If a deck speaks to me, I listen to it. I have however been spending much time lately exploring the Marseilles deck. I feel this is very important in order to understand the 'tarot' decks that have evolved over time. Whether we call them tarot or oracle I don't believe to be as important as whether they serve us or others. My very humble opinion, which changes often. Mimers

jmd	19 May 2003
The title of the thread, and Kiama's first post, seem to address two important, but different, questions. To my reading of her post, the principal question seeks to address what possibilities for change Tarot may have whilst remaining Tarot, irrespective of its 'birth'. I personally agree that transformations are always possible, and that certain transformations result in something becoming other than it was - example, a caterpillar, post chrysalis, would be called 'caterpillar' only by the poet in the pangs of inspired penning. With regards to 'definitions', it seems they are often counterproductive. Sure, they have their limited usefulness in reporting, in succinct form, how words, for example, are used (in dictionaries). They are also useful when one constructs axiomatic systems. Otherwise, 'definitions' tend to take away from understanding more fully what is at stake. Characterisations, on the other hand, highlight some key or essential characteristic which that under discussion has. So what are some of these when discussing Tarot? It depends, again, on what one focusses upon. Its structure has 78 cards containing 22 peculiar picture cards and 56 'minors' which are themselves divided into four suits with peculiar characteristics. This talks of its structure. Its uses are multiple, from gaming to philosophic enquiry... What, however, being does it embody? Here, though we may now be touching upon areas many would discard, seems a question which addresses what Tarot may be. If it is the body for the incarnation of particular forces or beings, then its images, its structure - even its uses - arise from considering what it is which incarnates. As with human beings incarnating within a body, a great variety - within, however, a very narrow range - is possible, with each of our peculiar skills, beauty, strengths, etc. Maybe Tarot's 'birth' needed some time for its blosseming... so very early decks depict a variety of numbering (or none), and some alteration in some cards. The being of Tarot, however, somehow may have ensured that its purity also manifests. The variety is a variety based on some deeper understanding and recognition of the being of Tarot - the Ür-Tarot - which always seeks to more properly manifest. ... no doubt my post will be dismissed by many with different mindsets... :)

firemaiden	19 May 2003
[post moved to its own thread, please delete]

Kiama	19 May 2003
Diana: I enjoyed your story and it gave me a much-needed chuckle, but as for it's message, I believe you have taken it a little too far. I am not talking about totally changing essences/meanings of the cards... I am not talking about changing what each suit basically represents. I am referring only to changes which help us to understand the cards better. For instance, let us assume that 'love, friendship' is the essence of the 2 of Cups. Let us also say that originally, 2 of Cups cards would show two cups. Now, suppose somebody realised that there was another way of showing 'love, friendship' in that card, so he put the two cups into the hands of two people, who were staring deep into each others eyes and smiling. 'Love, friendship' is still the meaning of the card, but it is shown in a different way. Now, let us suppose that another person came along, and decided to portray the 2 of Cups in yet another way, whilst still keeping the essential meaning of 'love, friendship'... She puts the first figure in a wedding dress, the second in a suit, and makes them take part in the tradition of drinking from each other's cups. 'Love, friendship', is still shown in the card, so the card's essence remains intact... But it has been portrayed in a different way. Is the third making of this card still the 2 of Cups? And suppose those people all did a whole Tarot deck... They changed each card so that it portrayed the essence of that card in a different way. Is the third deck created still a Tarot deck? Kiama

Diana	19 May 2003
Kiama: I would understand better what you're saying if I could understand WHY, for instance (to take a well-known deck as an example) Waite and Coleman-Smith put the pictures they did on their cards. But no-one has ever explained it to me. What made them choose the pictures that they did which have become so engrained in people's minds to such an extent that people seem to think that 2 of Cups means Love, and 9 of Pentacles means someone greedy? (I think it's the nine of pentacles I'm talking about here - that Turkish looking guy sitting all smug in front of his coins.) I do not understand so many of their cards, I have looked at them and studied them but I remain puzzled. Why are THEIR meanings the ones that are supposed to be considered the "true" meanings. Why do people just accept them without questioning? I could name a lot of the cards, but as always, I refer to their 10 of Swords. If they changed the 10 of Swords into a picture of someone very devastated, why can't someone else take 10 Swords and draw someone juggling them in a circus and tell people that the card means a need for being very adept at what one does? Then you say that I went too far when I spoke about changing the elements and their essence. I have seen that done SO often on modern Tarot decks (like Pumpkins. Or Birds and Trees. Just to give an example.) And don't forget a whole suit was changed when Waite made his deck. From Coins we got pentacles. So if he can do it, then why can't everyone else? Waite created a new Tarot, plagiarised from another one, but there are no copyright issues when it comes to ideas (thank god). Why should his meanings, rather than Dagobert's, be taken as gospel truth? I think Dagobert's Techno-Tarot is really cool. Down to earth and the meanings he really thought about - he just didn't go and clone someone elses thoughts and ideas. I'm going to write to him and make a pre-order. (By the way, I have three boxes at home where I put my Tarot decks. One for my Readings decks, one for my Reference decks and one for my Oracles. The Rider Waite is in the Oracle box.)

Cerulean	19 May 2003
This only pertains perhaps to a suggested view of some historical Italian tarots. My suggestion is allow the slant that the original D'Este and Visconti decks were done as part of the glittery self-propoganda and pastimes of ruling families of their respective duchies. Yes, they are examples of art history that might have been touched with not only allegories of Petrach, but mixed with poetic triumphs and rewriting of Greco-Roman myths to the glory of their family images If one wants to look at widespread and possible uses of Marseilles-based tarots and run forward, I don't think the widespread story begins with the 1450-to-whenever noble houses of Italy. It's more a narrow bridge from medieval to modern, although the Renaissance social history is fascinating. I always encourage fellow readers to ahead and read the well-documented suggestions from Petrach to Dummett to more Renaissance histories about Visconti and D'Este...but if you're like me, you settle down to a point in the past and tend to spend most of your time there... Mari H.

Kiama	19 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Diana Waite created a new Tarot, plagiarised from another one, but there are no copyright issues when it comes to ideas (thank god). Why should his meanings, rather than Dagobert's, be taken as gospel truth? I think Dagobert's Techno-Tarot is really cool. Down to earth and the meanings he really thought about - he just didn't go and clone someone elses thoughts and ideas. I'm going to write to him and make a pre-order. Waite's meanings are not accepted as 'gospel truth', which is why we have so many other decks out there, whole different schools of thought on the meanings, and Tarot journals in which we write our own insights. And so what if he 'cloned someone else's thoughts and ideas'...? It does not invalidate his idea of the Tarot at all. People wonder why Waite's school of thought is so popular... They wonder why it, and the Crowley Thoth deck, are the frame of reference we use nowadays when we consider whether a new Tarot deck is 'traditional' or 'non-traditional'... I have the answer. Because it works. My original question was really 'Is the modern Tarot deck actually a Tarot deck?' I'd be interested in finding out how you personally would make the distinction between Tarot deck and oracle deck. I was of the opinion that when interpreting the Marseilles deck, one took into account the number and suit... 2 of Cups, therefore to me with the Marseilles deck, using the suit and number technique would still represent friendship and love. And considering we don't actually have, at least not to my knowledge, anything to tell us what the meanings of the Marseilles cards were in the first place, I do not think we are in any position to say that later meanings for the cards are wrong. The reason why one cannot change the 10 of Swords to somebody juggling and then attribue a whole new meaning to it is because, imo, we then go onto changing what is the essence of that card. For instance... We have a Death card. 'Death' and all that it implies, is the 'essence' of the Card Without A Name. But in modern Tarot decks, different people look at Death in different ways. They focus on different aspects of death and the issues arising from it. They do not however, change the meaning totally. We do not see Tarot decks which have the Death card as meaning parties and social events. Suits may have been changed, but they have kept their original essence... Coins and pentacles are usually seen (At least by me) as the same thing. Cups and hearts aswell: Same thing. Birds and swords... Same thing. They have not lost their essence. On the other hand, Dagobert seems to have gone to the extreme of forgetting the essence of the Tarot. I see I'm on my own here again! Is it really my fate that I am destined to debate a point with nobody to help me??!!! :eek:;) Kiama

Cerulean	19 May 2003
Okay, how about this, There's a transition or a pivotal point made about 1910 in modern tarot. Pamela Colman Smith and Arthur Waite attempted in their collaboration to not only to take the traditional meanings of the majors, minors and court cards into their project. I believe their intent was also to transform the minors into a pictorial representation of meanings, making them into scenes for easier and clearer divinatory uses. The choice of Arthurian-style or fairy tradition scenes might have been in the mileau of the Golden Dawn's Irish Yeats social/study groups. But also--and sorry to bring this up, because I wanted people to not get back into the eras of the Italian wars/etc...in general, Waite and Smith's choice of courtly Arthurian costume touches in the background of Italian historical patterns. Arthur Waite as part of the Golden Dawn made a clear art-style break from Italian historical patterns and Etteilla variant fortune-telling style patterns. But as James Revak's Villa Revak points out, there was some influence of Etteilla in their meanings--he documents this quite well. In terms of divinatory meanings, Mary Greer's Tarot Reversals lists about 12 different style of meanings, including a historical Italian summary that derives from Lo Scarabeo's tarots. One point Mary Greer made in a lecture about Pamela Colman Smith's images in February 2003 was that the Rider Waite Smith images were easier for people to make associations with than other patterns available prior to 1910. Does this help? Am I being too vague? Mari Hoshizaki

HOLMES	19 May 2003
waite minors were obiviously taken from sol bosca or is it sol busca ? that would mean waite himself didn't change the minors so imaginitive but took a rare older tarot with pictural minors and said told coleman here you go do what you will (or so people would say as waite picture tarot sometimes disagrees with the minors images) that is why they put the pictures on their tarot. one would have to go look at sol bosca itself and see when about it came about (was it around near the time of the marsielles ?) (if so what came first ?)

Major Tom	19 May 2003
I'm not particularly fond of Mr. A. E. Waite, (I actually prefer Dr. P. F. Case's take on the majors) but I find myself in the position of needing to defend him. In his The Pictorial Key to the Tarot he provides ample justification for Pamela Coleman Smith's depiction of the Two of Cups: "A youth and maiden are pledging one another, and above their cups rises the Caduceus of Hermes, between the great wings of which there appears a lion's head. It is a variant of a sign which is found in a few old examples of this card... Divinatory Meanings: Love, passion, friendship, affinity, union, concord, sympathy, the interrelation of the sexes, and as a suggestion apart from all offices of divination - that desire which is not in Nature, but by which Nature is sanctified." His book also cites an extensive biobliography. I will content myself with listing the authors: M. Court de Gebelin, Etteilla, Samuel Weller Singer, W. A. Chatto, D. R. P. Boiteau d'Ambly, Eliphas Levi (serveral references), J. A. Vaillant, P. Christian, E. S. Taylor, Romain Merlin, Joseph Brunet y Bellet, S. L. MacGregor Mathers (interestingly enough for a LWB), Papus, Demy, R. Falconnier, F. Jolivet de Castellot, Stanislas de Guaita, J. J. Bourgeat, Antonio Magus, and Eudes Picard. It should be noted the only works written in English were by Singer, Chatto, and Mathers. Singer and Chattos works were regarding origins of playing cards - only Mathers' work concerned the tarot exclusively. The rest were written in French, and to the best of my knowledge never translated to English. Herein lies the problem. Waite was the first to write an entire book about tarot in English. I am American by birth and speak only English with any fluency, much as most of my fellow countrymen and indeed most of the English speaking world. Tarot as near as anyone has been able to convince me first appeared in Italy and was extensively written about in French. Thus, I am cut off by my ignorance of language from the texts which provide the vast foundation on tarot. I am therefore indebted to A. E. Waite for what he has provided - even if it was rectified for whatever purpose. For me, because of his assessability he defined the tarot and what I've come to know of it. His work has stood the test of time for generations of English speakers. That is good enough for me - although as I learn I do grow further away from his rectifications. }) I am completely unable at this point to provide a definition of what tarot is. But for me the RWS is and will remain a tarot deck. Call it an oracle if you will, is not tarot an oracle? To finally address Kiama's original question: Tarot is evolving and will continue to evolve. Much of what tarot is evolving into can no longer be rightly called tarot. })

truthsayer	19 May 2003
(strain of the theme from 2001 a space oddessey plays in the background) a heavy primoridial mist covers a volative cesspool of unknown creative origin. (boom boom boom) wait! there's a sign of life? a claw holding what seems to be primative paper products is attempting to surface...what could it be? could it be? yes it is! the first tarot deck! was it actually the tarot the forbidden that guided eve to bite the apple? were adam and eve the first tarot fools? did neanderthals read tarot by firelight? are the ancient drawing on cave walls actually the first evidence of tarot journalling? did they draw a daily card to discern where the best places to hunt are? were the cards carved into stone tablets like on the flintstones? a must have for the true tarot collector: neanderthal stone tarot cards for the collector who has all other decks.(forklift not covered in the price of deck) for the economy minded collector, clay recreations are available.

HOLMES	19 May 2003
the ten of swords being killed by swords is left up to great interpration of the reader. it is usually left up to you "you will be stabbed in the back " i told a person in my beginner tarot stages lol. for myself the ten of swords means killing the ego which is a natural progression of the swords where take up the conflict between our true self and the ego self. i dont' see the ten of swords as being very adpet at one does but that is our differnces in study, culture, life expereinces. i dont see how we can critize someone for using that to create something new. the birds was a great example of the air/mental element i thought. yes why can't we? do it like waite did it ? i take waite not to be gospel truth but rather simply a truth that i studied first and still trying to understand (having not even gotten into toth study yet ). diana what is your defination of the true tarot ? a person who can look into the symbolism of the marsielles can take that same insight and look into the rider tarot, and toth and see much of the same similarities . (the qabalistic tarot by robert wang help me to see that ).

Cerulean	19 May 2003
and happy to follow Joan Cole's link to someone who has digested the Sola Busca book and tarot study: http://ns1.lightspeed.bc.ca/hilander/sola/sola_info.htm If so, the leap was not so great, except for its introduction to English-speaking people...like myself! Mari Hoshizaki

HOLMES	19 May 2003
i feel the same thing as english is my primary language i havent' yet seen a marsielles "book" that describes the marsielles but for the qabalistic tarot. i am impressed that waite has studied so much french tarotists it gives me what is the word a sense of continuty? i too believe the tarot is constantly evolving and some become not tarot but a new oracle (like the symbolon which some cards do have basis in the orginal tarot by the pictures but by the system of how it got there is striaght astrology) (the soul truth tiding card which to me is a tarot ) and the enochian tarot (which i can't relate to tarot wise, but maybe someone else can )

Kiama	19 May 2003
I was looking back at my previous posts in this thread, and suddenly realised, to my horror, that I am saying the same things as the philosopher who's theories I find most abhorrent: Plato. He claimed (To put it into a few words which will not explain totally but which will get to the gist of it) that there is a 'True Fornm' of everything somewhere. We see many different beds here on Earth, but they are merely copies of the 'True Form' of the bed. And because they are copies, they are never the same as each other. And there I was going on about Tarot having an 'essence', which runs through all Tarot decks whether they be changed, modern, historically accurate, etc... I was basically saying the same as Plato. All Tarot decks are mere 'copies' of the 'essence' of what Tarot us, and thus they are bound to differ, but their essence remains the same. I am laughing, because I cannot believe I used such an unfounded claim! I claim there is an 'essence' which underlies Tarot... But it is highly doubtful whether there is actually such a thing! Firemaiden I think may have mixed up my definition of 'essence', which is why I have been so confused as to her references to people in this thread coming to blows about the sacredness of Tarot. I think what she thought I meant by essence was some osrt of sacredness within the Tarot itself. That's a whole new thread in itself, (Which I believe Firemaiden has already posted :D) but the essence I am speaking of is entirely different. I'm not quite sure how to define it, but needless to say it is what we might call the 'fundamentals' of what Tarot is. Major Tom: I think your conclusion is sensible, and logical... But something within me feels sad about it. As I said in the original post, I've become strangely attached to the word 'Tarot', and I'd dearly like to think that the 'thing'/map of the Universe/divinatory system which I have been studying for most of my life is what I thought it was... Oh damn it all, I'm gonna get me some Tarot texts from France, and try and read them! ;) I can mostly make out what lwb's in French are saying, so I can guess some of what the books are saying I'm sure, and if not, I'll just have to learn through practice... Kiama

ihcoyc	19 May 2003
Plato's notions are rather annoying when they are overgeneralised, or when the claim is put forth that there is a "true form" for cats and chairs and other things, pre-existent and eternal, and our own cats or chairs or whatnot are mere attempts to imperfectly substantiate the eternal verities beyond our grasp. The tarot, by contrast, is a human creation. Like any other game or sociolinguistic construction, human convention determines what is and what isn't a tarot. We may not resolve every last case, but we can talk meaningfully about the contents of those conventions.

felicityk	19 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Mari_Hoshizaki and happy to follow Joan Cole's link to someone who has digested the Sola Busca book and tarot study: http://ns1.lightspeed.bc.ca/hilander/sola/sola_info.htm I was going to point out this link as well. This is a great resource. It is clear that some of the Waite-Smith minor arcana were inspired by the Sola-Busca deck, but not all or even a majority of them. This site helpfully puts the cards side-by-side in the cases where there is a close resemblance. The Naibi di Giovanni Vacchetta from 1893, reproduced by Lo Scarabeo as Tarot of the Master, is another pre-Waite deck with semi-illustrated minors (not full scenes as with the Waite-Smith deck, but illustrative elements as with the Sola-Busca deck). http://www.themysticeye.com/pics/master.htm Felicity

Diana	19 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by HOLMES diana what is your defination of the true tarot ? Dearest Holmes: If I knew what true tarot was, then I doubt I would be here on Aeclectic debating this with you all. I know one thing though, and that one of the keys, an important one, to this question is to be found in the Marseilles Tarot. And I also realise that it is about time I contacted the authors of good French books to ask why they are not getting their books translated into English. For it is a shame that there is such a lack. For me this is one of the best threads we've had for a long time. Kiama, thank you for the threads you've made recently and the insistence which you use to get to the bottom of things. The links are grand, the posting contents are wonderful. Dagobert is reading this thread as well and is reconsidering his bananas. :)

Alex	19 May 2003
Kiama, you're so precious! I have referred to Aristotle's categories, not Plato's. Note that there was some "evolution" from the last to the first. Your argument in your first post is understandable and I would agree with it if someone invested more time in trying to convince me. You just want to call "Tarot" a group of decks that is more inclusive than what Diana would like to call "Tarot". I think it's more a value judgement than anything. And when it comes to it, there's no "rational" argument to be set forth. I wanted to throw some clarification on what the real issues being discussed here are about, besides these. The fact that all decks may serve the same "function" isn't a good argument to call them all Tarot (I know you did not advance such argument though), for some of them may trully diverge in their nature. Where to "draw the line" is really arbitrary. Alex. Quote: Originally posted by Kiama I was looking back at my previous posts in this thread, and suddenly realised, to my horror, that I am saying the same things as the philosopher who's theories I find most abhorrent: Plato.

Lee	19 May 2003
Kiama, you are not alone. I agree with every word you've written here. Here is my opinion, for what it's worth. I believe that Diana is correct when she suggests that the R-W-S is a deck which as been adapted, completely arbitrarily, from the Marseilles and other decks. When I say "arbitrarily," I mean that the author/artist designed the deck which most perfectly expressed their view of what a Tarot deck should be, without regard to how faithful it was to its predecessors. I don't think there's anything particularly "correct" about the Minor pictures on the R-W-S; it's just that people over the years have found them useful. However (and I think this is where I part company with Diana) I also believe that the Marseilles is just as arbitrary an adaptation of its predecessors. Again, the designer(s) of the Marseilles took what they wanted from earlier decks and added what they felt should be added in order to express their view of what a Tarot deck should be. I don't believe that the Marseilles representations hold any more "weightiness" or "correctness" than the R-W-S ones. I think each of these decks is just as arbitrary as the other. Some people prefer the conceptual and pictorial ideas contained in the R-W-S, so for them this is the "real Tarot." Some people prefer the conceptual and pictorial ideas contained in the Marseilles. For them, this is the "real Tarot." I think one could just as easily make the case that it is the Visconti deck which is the "real Tarot" and that the Marseilles is an inadequate and arbitrary adaptation of it. I think it's perfectly reasonable for any of us to decide that any of these three decks (or any other) is the one that is the most comfortable for us to work with. I wouldn't agree that the Marseilles should be looked at as the last word in Tarot, and that any deck which comes after it is not Tarot unless it's simply a reproduction of the Marseilles. I mean, obviously we can hold that view if we want, but I wouldn't agree with the suggestion that everybody needs consider the same deck as the "real Tarot." I'm not being very articulate but hopefully I'm getting my point across. -- Lee EDITED TO ADD: I'm aware that Diana believes that there is a great weight of oral tradition behind the Marseilles deck. It's just that I believe it's perfectly possible that it's all (to be crude about it) just stuff people made up in the 19th and 20th centuries in order to give their esoteric ideas more legitimacy. One can certainly use these ideas if one wants to, but to me these ideas are just as valid, or invalid, or arbitrary, as anyone else's.

Lee	20 May 2003
Some more thoughts... Diana's story is of course very amusing, but I think it needs to be said (and I think I've said this before, so, sorry if I repeat myself) that just because a deck author makes some unorthodox choices does not necessarily mean they know nothing about Tarot and only first looked at a Tarot deck the day before they designed their deck. In fact, I highly doubt that any deck author who has designed a published deck did so without any previous knowledge of the Tarot. It seems to me there's two implications in Diana's story. One is that modern Tarot designers have had no prior Tarot experience, which, as I say, I think is unlikely. The other is that Diana means to suggest that unless one is familiar with the particular oral traditions of which she speaks (and which I'm skeptical of anyway), then one has no real knowledge of the Tarot. Since these oral traditions are for the most part untranslated from the French, what this would really be saying is that all non-French-speaking peoples are ignorant about the Tarot. Surely this is not what Diana means to say. But I'm starting to wonder... Regarding suit symbols, Diana complains that their essences have been changed. It seems to me that the whole point is that their essences have not been changed, it's just that the designer chose what he/she felt were symbols which were more expressive of what to them is the essence of the suits. Suit symbols have been changing right from the beginning of the Tarot. Wands were being portrayed as arrows in one of the earliest historical decks. Does that mean the Marseilles is invalid because it doesn't use arrows? Of course not. Rachel Pollack chose Birds to represent the Swords suit. Was this a capricious whim? I don't think so. I think she felt birds better expressed the concept of mind than swords, and without the suggestion of violence which swords carry. The designer of the Victoria Regina used guns. Guns carry the same suggestion of violence, and are in fact simply a technologically newer version of the sword. They also make a great symbol for the mind suit because they're a machine which someone had to invent. The attribution of the suits to the four elements is, I believe, a recent innovation. Unless I'm wrong, I don't believe there's any evidence of any such attribution before the 19th century, and certainly not when the Marseilles deck was created. -- Lee

Kiama	20 May 2003
I've been having strange dreams of late, usually quite disturbing ones due to the stress of exams, but last night, after thinking about this thread before falling asleep, I had an interesting dream... There was a starscape. I was kinda floating there, waiting for something, and then suddenly I caught a glimpse of something in the distance. I 'swam' (Don't ask!) towards it, and found myself standing in font of a loooong line of Tarot decks, all floating in space... In a sort of holographic image thing. At the very left end of the line, were the earliest decks. In front of me were the present day modern decks. At the very far right, a line extended infinitely, of all the future decks that were to come. And I 'swam' amongst them, and caught a glimpse of a very profound thought running through my mind. I'll see if I can remember it now... The thought was this: Whether we call them Tarot decks or Oracle decks is arbitrary. They are all the same thing, but changing and evolving depending on the people who use them. They have all, and will all add to the 'collective unconcious' of what Tarot is... Agh, I wish I was better at explaining abstract concepts. I blame it on exams. }) Kiama

jmd	20 May 2003
You expressed it very clearly, Kiama - though not in a form which would make for a good mark in an exam... although, if Russell could be given full marks for answering 'Is this a question?' by his clever 'If this is an answer!', then you have something here! It seems to me that what you experienced in dream-form is precisely this impulse/force which manifests in various Tarot decks - some closer reflections of its provenance than others. Certainly it is up to us to call some 'Tarot' and others 'Oracle'... within the line of Tarot, it is somewhat arbitrary which you choose to call by which title. This is, however - and I'll state it again - within the long line of Tarot! Lee also mentions the Visconti as an early Tarot, possibly with claims to some Ür-ness. Catboxer has also said something similar in, if I recall, the Magician thread in this Historical & Iconographic Forum. As I pointed out there, I personally disagree. It is not whether or not there is an oral tradition, or whether the Marseille arose in France, Italy, Spain, the Languedoc area - or even Morocco. It is, rather, that the 'Marseilles' deck (to continue with its common and popular name) exhibits certain characteristics which make it far more of an Ür-deck than a deck painted for the personal pleasure of a count/ess or his/her family. The mere recognition of Visconti and Sforza family members within the deck shows that something was taken that was already in existence and rendered more personalised. Here, then, it must have, of necessity, moved away from impulses more 'pure'. There is also, of course, the very high possibility that these Visconti-Sforza decks were not 78 card decks, and hence, though related and maybe even (though I doubt this unreservedly) antecedents to Tarot, themselves possibly not Tarot. If such is the case, then Tarot includes the Visconti/Sforza non-Tarot decks amongst its peripheral proto-history. With regards to the platonic forms and their but poor representations in things here below the eighth sphere, there is another sense in which the archetypal platonic-like 'form' may be understood (with regards to, in this case, Tarot). It does assume, however, a spiritual view of the world. If one takes the world as essentially spiritual in nature, this includes its very physicality. The very way to view even things physical, however, is not limited to their mere appearance (and here I use the term to include its appearance using instruments of magnification or quantification). There is also, at least in the views of some, a qualitative and spiritual impulse moving through each and every manifestation. It is this which may be characterised as a being which seeks to manifest in myriad ways, and this which one may characterise as the 'being of Tarot', which 'incarnates' however imperfectly, in as many guises as possible, some of which reflect more truly its nature than others. ... but enough for now, and to read other responses!

felicityk	20 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Lee The attribution of the suits to the four elements is, I believe, a recent innovation. Unless I'm wrong, I don't believe there's any evidence of any such attribution before the 19th century, and certainly not when the Marseilles deck was created. According to Villa Revak, Eliphas Levi (1810-75) was the first to do so. http://www.villarevak.org/bio/levi_2.html And, as I pointed out in an earlier thread, he linked Swords to Fire and Wands to Air. :) Felicity

littleneptune	20 May 2003
I think the issue of APPROPRIATION is an important one here. Just as Kiama sees no problem in taking Diana's comment out of the context of the argument in which it was made, and placing it in another thread for her own purposes, she (and it seems others) also feel that it is acceptable to do this with tarot symbols and meanings. However, there are ethical questions surrounding appropriation. Do we have the right to take others' creations and use them for our own purposes and even, in the case of the early occultists, CLAIM THEM AS OUR OWN? If the tarot was created today, the original author/artist WOULD retain copyright on the images. Anyone appropriating (or stealing) these images could be taken to court, and would likely lose the case. This had not yet become an issue in the 15th century before the invention of the common printing press (when appropriation problems became much more common). This may seem an argument about legalities, but it is much more than that, for it demonstrates that the VALUE of an "original" still holds in today's world, and not only for profit. It also preserves the INTENT of the original creation, which in the case of tarot, has now been lost forever.

Diana	20 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune It also preserves the INTENT of the original creation, which in the case of tarot, has now been lost forever. littleneptune, do not despair. Tarot is not a dodo. As long as its essence remains with us, the intention behind it will not get lost, even if it is hidden at present (although you, I suspect, have smelt its sweet fragrance). But of course, this means that its essence must be upheld with respect and honour and awe. Gratitude to one's ancestors is also recommended.

Diana	20 May 2003
Lee: I do not say that the Marseilles is the last and final word in Tarot. That would be ridiculous. I do believe however that if one has not studied the Marseilles decks at some point in one's study of Tarot, that one is neglecting something vital to understanding Tarot itself. It's what I have called sometimes "micro-wave" Tarot. Or instant Tarot, like instant coffee. To understand Tarot one has to study it. How can you study something without going back and finding out what its origins (as far back as we can go) are. If I want to understand a language properly, I study the grammar, the literature, the etymology of words. I listen to the music that was written in that language, I read the newspapers. I read the history of the country of the language I am learning. Etc. etc. etc. Or else I'm just learning the words without understanding what their ESSENCE is. Sure I can make myself understood and hear what people are saying (without though understanding all the subtleties). But that's not what a language is all about. A language is more than just words. A tarot deck is more than just 78 cards, with Majors and Minors, and different pictures painted on them. I have never wanted to say that people should only read with the Marseilles. That would be a pity for there are some very interesting modern Tarot decks in the world (not many, but they definitely do exist.) Also you say that you doubt that any deck author who has designed a published deck did so without any previous knowledge of the Tarot. I am not so sure about that....... I do believe that some of their knowledge is very scant. I have seen decks that look as if people have just read Learning Tarot by Joan Bunning (a lovely book and a lovely lady), fooled around a bit with Tarot and decided to make their own deck. I also suspect that some of the publishers decide to do a deck on a certain theme, hire an artist, give him a few books, a few Rider Waite clones and tell him to draw the pictures based on that.

littleneptune	20 May 2003
Does anyone know of an english translation of an ITALIAN book on tarot? I would like to fully understand what the original Italian images meant to the people at the time of their creation. I'm finishing Dummett's book on the French tradition ("A Wicked Pack of Cards"-- thank you forum members for that excellent recommendation!). I realize now that there is still much more to learn.

Cerulean	20 May 2003
Michael Dummett's Visconti Sforza is the closest under $40 alternative that I have found in English. Berti's editing of the Visconti Gold book and introduction to the Sola Busca book is what I've found in English so far. I'm trying to find the Sola Busca book for myself, I don't like the 19th century deck. Andy's Playing Cards as a website is very closely cited among playing card historians and I believe he is situated in Italy. He cross-references Tom Tadforlittle While Italo Calvino is said to have text of Visconti cards, it is said to be an expensive alternative.

littleneptune	20 May 2003
Mari_Hoshizaki--thanks very much. I will look into these titles immediately. Are these books that come with the deck, or single publications?

Lee	20 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune Do we have the right to take others' creations and use them for our own purposes and even, in the case of the early occultists, CLAIM THEM AS OUR OWN But, the designers of the Marseilles did the same thing! Should we ignore the Marseilles because the designers appropriated certain aspects from already-existing decks and created a new deck? Quote: I would like to fully understand what the original Italian images meant to the people at the time of their creation. I think this is a big part of the problem, we really have no way of knowing exactly what the images meant to the people at the time. We can speculate based on the cards themselves but, as discussed earlier, internal evidence can never be conclusive. I don't believe there's any written evidence from the time that discusses the Tarot images specifically. In Stuart Kaplan's Encyclopedia of Tarot Vol. 2, he discusses various possible sources for all the images, but such discussions will never be entirely satisfactory just because of the amount of speculation involved. Quote: Originally posted by Diana I do believe however that if one has not studied the Marseilles decks at some point in one's study of Tarot, that one is neglecting something vital to understanding Tarot itself. But, Diana, what exactly do you mean by "study the Marseilles"? If you mean read about it, there are no English-language books about the Marseilles (except Sallie Nichols' Jung and Tarot). If you mean to study the history, religion, language, music etc. of Italy and France of the time, I think that's a grand thing to do but I don't think this is going to lead us to specific concepts of the cards -- or, it might, but the concepts of the cards which people develop from studying these sources will be different for each person, because people will apply what they've learned to the cards in different ways. If you mean simply studying the cards themselves, well, I believe you could take two people at random and lock them in a room for ten years with nothing but a Marseilles deck, and at the end of ten years of studying the Marseilles and nothing else, they will have come to quite different conclusions about what the cards mean to them. If you have specific written sources in mind as the definitive ones to study to gain what you consider to be "the" understanding of the Marseilles, then by all means tell us what they are, even if they're not in English, so we at least have some idea of what specifically you mean. The problem is I don't know what you mean by ESSENCE. I mean, I understand the concept but not how you're applying it to the Tarot. Perhaps, as I say, you're getting it from specific sources; but if not, then I suspect that, like the rest of us, your Tarot essence was obtained by a creative, unconscious amalgamation of factors from your upbringing, your education, your personality, and your experiences, all applied to the Tarot images. What I fail to understand is how this is any different from anyone else's Tarot essence, or necessarily any better or more valid. Now, who knows, if I were to read a simply- and straightforwardly-stated exposition of what your Tarot concepts are, I might be won over to your views. It's obvious from your posts that you're an extremely intelligent and well-educated person, and I have no doubt that your understanding of Tarot is richer and deeper than mine is. But in order to be won over, I need to know what it is I'm being won over to. Your hints are not enough to penetrate my stupid brain. I realize you want us to study the culture but, as I say, I sincerely doubt that if we study the culture, we will arrive at the same card concepts as yours. Perhaps you've already enumerated your Tarot beliefs in another thread, if so please accept my apologies and by all means, direct me there! :) -- Lee

Kiama	20 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune I think the issue of APPROPRIATION is an important one here. Just as Kiama sees no problem in taking Diana's comment out of the context of the argument in which it was made, and placing it in another thread for her own purposes, she (and it seems others) also feel that it is acceptable to do this with tarot symbols and meanings. However, there are ethical questions surrounding appropriation. Y'know, I honestly thought that what Diana said needed more than just a one-line mention in a thread... It was powerful, had importance... It raised such interesting issues, which I thought people would enjoy discussing. I did not simply take the comment out of context to attack it/her or for my own purposes, but to continue intellectual discussion of something so interesting. I apologise if this offends you. Kiama

Kiama	20 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Diana Lee: I do not say that the Marseilles is the last and final word in Tarot. That would be ridiculous. I do believe however that if one has not studied the Marseilles decks at some point in one's study of Tarot, that one is neglecting something vital to understanding Tarot itself. How can you study something without going back and finding out what its origins (as far back as we can go) are. Or else I'm just learning the words without understanding what their ESSENCE is. Sure I can make myself understood and hear what people are saying (without though understanding all the subtleties). But that's not what a language is all about. A language is more than just words. You raise some excellent points here Diana. And to be honest, I'd tend to agree with you. However, I contradict myself (Nothing wrong in that! })) because whilst I feel that studying the Tarot's history is excellent and very rewarding, I would not say it is the be-all and end-all to understanding what the Tarot's ESSENCE is, nor do I feel it is that important. *Ducks flying tomatoes* It's just my personal opinion however, which is obviously coloured by my view of what I want to get out of Tarot, what I use it for, and what I think it is... You see, I consider it more important to live the cards than simply study their history. I have posted a few times now that alot of my spirituality is based around the concepts within the (modern) Tarot. This is what I mean when I live the Tarot. I apply the messages and concepts from the cards to my life, just as one might apply... *Thinks for decent example* Other 'maps of the Universe' like the Qaballah... Or to give not-such-a-good example, the concepts within holy books such as the Bible. (Though my Tarot is not my equivalent of the Bible, since I also take concepts from other things. Like Disney. And Johnny Cash. Okay, so I have a strange spirituality, but it works.) What I'm more interested in when it comes to history of the Tarot, is the evolution of the Tarot from the first decks to the modern decks we see now. How did it get to where it is today? Why? What on earth was going on in the minds of those who played a part in the evolution? There are, as it stands, lots of missing links, but I'd dearly like to find them. (Wouldn't we all?! ;)) Kiama

HOLMES	20 May 2003
everyone knows on this forum that their words are written for everyone to see, and if someone wants to discuss my words in a thread (be i so blessed) then i know that what i said had to be clairifed or need to be talked about in a differnt thread for greater depth. i am sure that is the attitude that is taken by those who are open and willing to learn here. this way we are accountable for our actions, to edit out things that are offensive to others, or just delete them if they have no bearing on the case. you go on keep being yourself kiama, for that is what we like about you.

HOLMES	20 May 2003
hmm seeing tarot as an essence is a big stepping stone for that is probaly the closest we will get to the true tarot for we have probaly lost forever what the tarot was supposed to be. sure you can see hints of tarot in cultures , mythos, and systems, but there is something about the tarot that can not be defined. the essence of something can grow, change, expand with the times. and so tarot is now out there, for us all to grow and live with . what does it mean to live with the tarot ? to mediate daily on a figure from the tarot itself. perhaps. i feel it is more like taking the teachings of the tarot and apply it to actual life. death , devil. hanged man. emperor, as we move through life we start to understand the teachings more. that could be actually applied to any situation example the people we meet, we try to define how they are acting at a certain by a court card and say this is what i am seeing in you. (then at a deeper level we can say i am actually seeing this in myself for you are a reflection of myself.) or if we look at our current situation , we can mediate a min at any time and say what does my situation at this time remind me from the tarot ? an image of the six of sword might come to you , or 8 of wands. and then we will know how to solve the situation we are in. what do i need to know at this time , devil might come. and we could say , ah i am seeing it as outside evil but really it is my attachment and fears holding me back for i am giving power to my ego. this comes from the essence of tarot, and working with it and understanding it on the personal level. such a person could make a powerful tarot given their life experiences. but back to the tarot itself. it is out there, like qabbalah, astrology, and numerology. some will reduce it, others will be frivilous with it, (ohh big word i dont' know what it means but i saw it as i was writing ) and some live to put their individual touch on such things. and these individual touches expand the tarot , qabbalah, astrology, and numerology and other stuff. it becomes like the movie beutiful mind(and actual event), where someone new theory can change the world. such will it be with the tarot , and tarot decks, and perhaps in a thousand years it will become so much more for if you think of tarot hasn;t been around for a thousand year , docutmentaly yet the archtypes has been around for much longer and so the history of those archtypes and the modern influence they have on us will be explored. and so the tarot will continue to upgrade, like astrology, and numerology for the times(and other systems )

Silverlotus	20 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Diana I do believe however that if one has not studied the Marseilles decks at some point in one's study of Tarot, that one is neglecting something vital to understanding Tarot itself. It's what I have called sometimes "micro-wave" Tarot. Or instant Tarot, like instant coffee. To understand Tarot one has to study it. How can you study something without going back and finding out what its origins (as far back as we can go) are. But what if your focus is the esoteric traditions of the past century or so (like the Golden Dawn)? It seems to me that the general thought of some posters is that these newer tarots don't owe a lot to the older decks beyond the basic structure, that they have become to far removed by the addition of pictorial pips, etc. So, how would studying the Marseilles or Visconti aid me in understanding the RWS, for example? (Just to play Devil's advocate.) In regards to my thoughts on the main topic of this tread, for me a tarot deck is defined partly by it's structure. It should be comprised of 78 cards, 22 of which represent the Major Arcana, and the remaining 56 decided among the four suits of the Minor Arcana. I also define a deck as tarot based on the feeling and intent of the deck. By that I mean the meanings of the cards should reflect the long established meanings. That begs the argument of who and how were these meaning established, and you know, I don't really care all that much. For all the years that tarot has been used for "fortune telling", the cards have picked up meanings that for all intents and purpose have entered the collective unconscious of the deck and of its users. I would like to better understand those meanings, using numerology, colour theory, or anything else at hand, including historical study. I may even question long established meanings. But when it comes down to it, it is the combination of those meanings and the structure of the deck that make tarot tarot in my opinion. If a deck has the tarot structure but the creator intends for the 10 of Swords to represent, say, a fruitful marriage, well, it's not tarot for me. I'm sure someone (or everyone) will disagree, but that's okay. :)

baba-prague	20 May 2003
Silverlotus wrote: If a deck has the tarot structure but the creator intends for the 10 of Swords to represent, say, a fruitful marriage, well, it's not tarot for me. I'm sure someone (or everyone) will disagree, _______________________ Actually, I doubt that many people would disagree. I think you put it well. Maybe I would be less insistent on the 78 cards (I've just got the Minchiate which is 96 cards, but still "tarot" I think) but you're absolutely right in saying that no matter what differences of opinion we all have, we can agree on some broad (maybe very broad) interpretations for most of the cards and any deck that totally ignores that just doesn't work. To support what you say with another example, if I saw a deck in which the Two of Cups showed two people drinking in a bar and I read in the accompanying book that this card signifies problems with alcohol - well that would NOT qualify as a tarot deck to me. I suppose in the end my definition is roughly "if I can do meaningful readings with a deck, then it's tarot, if I can't, well it might be a lovely art deck but...". Where that leaves my definition of oracle cards I'm not sure? (actually, thinking about it. I would say that tarot also has to have trumps and pips - or Major and Minor Arcana - she added quickly in the fear of offending someone LOL - and so oracle decks clearly don't count). Okay - that's my brief contribution, I felt I should stop lurking round this thread! ...and Kiama - don't be put off if the discussion gets a bit heated sometimes - I would guess most people reading or participating in this thread are thoroughly enjoying themselves - AND learning. So keep up the controversy :-)

Diana	20 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Lee But, Diana, what exactly do you mean by "study the Marseilles"? (............) The problem is I don't know what you mean by ESSENCE. (...........) Now, who knows, if I were to read a simply- and straightforwardly-stated exposition of what your Tarot concepts are, I might be won over to your views. I It's obvious from your posts that you're an extremely intelligent and well-educated person, and I have no doubt that your understanding of Tarot is richer and deeper than mine is. But in order to be won over, I need to know what it is I'm being won over to. -- Lee 1) A thorough Google Search will take you to amazing places. It takes time and at first one's search is seemingly fruitless. But in time one discovers great gems. It is helpful to have a pack of cards as well. 2) Essence means: "the permanent as contrasted with the accidental element of being"; "the individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing esp. as opposed to its existence"; (amongst other things). 3) I am not trying to win anyone over to my views. I just happen to state them very strongly because that is the way I talk when I feel passionate about something. As to my being an intelligent and well-educated person, well, the former I often have serious doubts about, and the latter is incorrect. I left school at 17 but I do hope, with all my heart, that in a next life I will be able to become a scholar. Kiama: if I have gone too far off-topic, perhaps you will excuse me. But you did quote me, after all! :)

firemaiden	20 May 2003
Duplicate post . Please delete (why does this happen?)

firemaiden	20 May 2003
Kiama, you are very brave, and I am enjoying this debate, after all. I thought I wouldn't. But you know, it turns out we are made of stronger stuff than I thought. :). I am glad you started this thread, and am enjoying reading all the different (and so eloquently expressed) points of view here. What's a little heat if we end up learning something in the end, right? I do think it is difficult as primarily an english speaker to learn much about the Marseilles. I have a Marseilles deck, but the lovely LWB says nothing, nada, zilch, zippo, nil about the meaning of the Minors. I would like to know if there ARE traditional meanings for the Marseilles minors, or was reading with the Marseilles historically done with 22 cards only and if there are traditional meanings, what are they? or how do we learn them? finally, do they, or how do they, differ from the meanings we have been working with from RWSC and off-shoots. P.S. Diana, sometimes life experience plus remaining open to learning confers far greater education than a doctorate. :)

Alex	20 May 2003
in practice, but not in theory. For example, how do I know that HOLMES is that little fetus that grew inside his mom's, the same as toddler HOLMES walking around and putting everything in his mouth, and the same as HOLMES who is now contributing to the forum... and the same as old grey-haired HOLMES twenty years from now? There is a continuity in time, and HOLMES' essence does not change. His qualities do. But the continuity of the "Tarot" throughout time is not so "solid". As Diana said, someone might have seen a Tarot deck on someone else's desk, then decided to built his own, and this new deck bears very little connection with the tarot. Again, the clear-cut is arbitrary, even though some of you might have stronger feelings about where it lies. Cheers Alex. Quote: Originally posted by HOLMES the essence of something can grow, change, expand with the times. and so tarot is now out there, for us all to grow and live with .

Lee	20 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Diana 1) A thorough Google Search will take you to amazing places. It takes time and at first one's search is seemingly fruitless. But in time one discovers great gems. Okay. Google says it searches 3,083,324,652 web pages. I guess I'd better get started. It will take me a while, so I won't have much time for posting for a while. See ya. -- Lee

Kiama	21 May 2003
If I've learned anything from this thread, it's that I take for granted that what I think the Tarot is, other people think the same thing... It's wonderful how each of us has a different view of where the true Tarot lies, what we should use the Tarot for, what the Tarot is... The beauty of this forum is that there is such a diversity of people, so one is bound to find out a whole diversity of opinions! It's great! Until three days ago, I never realised that people hold the views Diana does. Until about two months ago, I never realised people actually read with the Marseilles deck or felt it had a deeper purpose than gaming... Wonderful... That's all I can think of to say! :D Let me re-look at the whole thread, so we can orient ourselves. - There are people who feel that Tarot, in it's true form, really began with the Marseilles decks. - There are people who feel that Tarot, in it's true form, really began with the occult revival decks. - There are people who feel that Tarot has changed so much since its 'true form' days that it should no longer be classed as Tarot. - There are people who feel that Tarot has changed alot, but that it still retains some 'essence' (That word's been thrown around alot! ;)) which still makes it 'Tarot'. We all agree (I think) that Tarot has changed a helluva lot since its 'birth'. But that seems to be the only common ground so far... Whether 'essence' exists in the Tarot, or whether 'essence' means that Tarot is still Tarot, is highly debated, as is the nature of the 'essence'... This will never be answered though, well, at least not 'communally'. Each of us I'm sure has out own thoughts on the matter, but I seriously doubt we can come to a conclusion other than 'agree to disagree'! :D Kiama

Aerin	21 May 2003
"- There are people who feel that Tarot has changed alot, but that it still retains some 'essence' (That word's been thrown around alot! ) which still makes it 'Tarot'." This is where I am at the moment. And I hope that everyone can agree to disagree and be glad that there are enough differences in people's views to make it interesting. If we all agreed, then perhaps there would be fewer opportunities to learn and grow. What I would be interested to know is the extent to which these differences lead to materially different changes in people's Tarot practice, that can be identified in differences in their behaviour. One ?obvious? difference seems to me to be to do with what decks people are likely to use and which books (or not-books) they consult, that may lead in turn to different fields of interpretation and perhaps even what sort of questions they believe Tarot can provide insight into. Aerin ps Diana, if you want to do some more formal education then there are always ways and means, if it is a desire that you have for yourself (as against a belief that it is better somehow, and I don't subscribe to that view)

Diana	21 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama - There are people who feel that Tarot, in it's true form, really began with the Marseilles decks. - There are people who feel that Tarot, in it's true form, really began with the occult revival decks. - There are people who feel that Tarot has changed so much since its 'true form' days that it should no longer be classed as Tarot. - There are people who feel that Tarot has changed alot, but that it still retains some 'essence' (That word's been thrown around alot! ;)) which still makes it 'Tarot'. There are also those who believe that Tarot, in its true form, began a long long long long time ago, before the Marseilles decks. (*Diana timidly puts up her hand........ and her umbrella as she sees some possible storm clouds on the horizon.*)

littleneptune	21 May 2003
Someone said (quote) "...and Kiama - don't be put off if the discussion gets a bit heated sometimes - I would guess most people reading or participating in this thread are thoroughly enjoying themselves - AND learning. So keep up the controversy." I couldn't disagree more. Pseudo-intellectual "debates" about tarot based on conjecture and personal opinion at the expense of historical fact is not my idea of a good time. The tarot deck has a history, whether one likes it or not. It was invented in Italy in the 15th Century. It did not begin with the Marseille deck. It was a meaningful game in Italy, with meaningful images that were created to portray a meaning. The occultists didn't know this, and they didn't care to know this. They had their own "intuitive" view about the true meanings of the cards. But one can't simply ignore history because one doesn't like it, or because it's not exciting enough, or 'magical' enough. That is simply ignorance. So the card meanings aren't written down in a Little White Book? Try looking to the culture that invented them instead of one's own opinion (or worse yet, attributing false meanings from 'ancient Egypt' or 'special knowledge' from the gods). These kinds of debates lead nowhere in terms of learning anything about the actual tarot. But perhaps, like those occultists I mentioned above, many people here don't really want to learn...

ihcoyc	21 May 2003
Speaking for myself, I do enjoy a debate from time to time. I have two fairly strong and somewhat inconsistent beliefs about the issues that arise. One is the sense that tradition is important, and should not be cast aside for light or frivolous reasons. Part of the power of tarot, astrology, qabalah, mythologies, and similar systems is their ability to become a common language, a way to categorise and relate to things we observe and discuss them in a meaningful manner. Unless there is a shared tradition and something of a system, this kind of communication is impossible. But, like it or not, the themed and gimmick decks, and the various esoteric decks, are now part of the tradition. They are accepted because they satisfy human needs, and to decry them is to cut yourself off from the river. I rebel against parts of the tradition, and you should too, as soon as you have grasped the basics of it. You should understand something of the hows and whys these things came to be tradition before you reject them. In all things, you should strive to deepen your understanding, rather than to start over anew. But problems arise when the tradition contains mystery-mongering that I find hard to swallow. The (authentic) Tarot is a library of images from the early Renaissance and late mediæval periods. I am mildly annoyed when esoteric symbolism confuses and obscures fairly straightforward symbols from this tradition, like the mess the RWS deck makes of the Wheel of Fortune. Tradition is always needing reformed, but if we seek to do it by ourselves alone, we become the enemy we most fear. Really. The last thing we need is a Tarot Pope who infallibly proclaims dogma about what a card means. Not just because to make those assumptions would be hubris in the extreme; more importantly, because the decrees of such a pope would inevitably become just another part of the same process, and spark re-interpretations and petty rebellions in themselves.

jmd	22 May 2003
I personally agree very much with ihcoyc's post - again... With regards to Tarot's history, I also agree that it is important to look at what this discipline may offer. To say, however, that it 'was invented in Italy in the 15th Century' is going beyond what history can show us - which is that the earliest extant partial decks date from this time and place. Quite different to the conclusion some wish to reach from this. For example, numerous images, though disparate (ie, not found as part of a deck), are found from earlier centuries in, amongst other places, northern France. I cannot of course conclude from this that Tarot also arose from there, for that too would go beyond the historical evidence. As ihcoyc so wonderfully mentions, however, is that the mediaeval and renaissance iconography needs to also be understood and studied. Here, one is inevitably lead to yet earlier times, including the Egyptian influence upon Rome during its thriving Empire. This, again, does not imply that Tarot arose from there. What it does suggest, however, is that certain important influences and which themselves reflected in the Tarot are dismissed by certain people with a peculiar kind of historical bent. If the image studied was not Tarot, it seems that, not having had the 'occult' overlay, its imagery would be assessed far more wholesomely by historians than seems to be the case. Let it also be known that I value highly Dummett's, De Paulis's and Decker's contributions - and others beside them. One of the things they do not address, however, are the card's images and their influence. Irrespective as to whether the first Tarot was or wasn't in northern Italy - and the historical remnants seem to point there - the Tarot is more than mere card play. Its images and structure attest to this. To claim that Tarot was invented in a particular place and time needs more than the find of a few extant decks from a region.

Cerulean	22 May 2003
That reminds me...if there are studies devoted to the tarocchi minors and playing cards, at least that portion shows some interesting cross-cultural references. Even Dummett's Visconti discussion when it comes to the minors suggests influences from other country's decks..I vaguely recall Spanish style pips that might have Moorish or Arabic roots. At some point I want to look at the Spanish and Portugese decks--these are playing card minors-- that landed in Nagasaki before 1600 and evolved into the Hana Fuda deck (which is somewhat alluded to in a modern reproduction under Stuart Kaplan's direction, the Ukiyoe Tarot). Someone found historical tarocchi gaming literature about Ferarra in an European chess magazine! So keep your eyes and minds open. Maybe the next historical tarocchi discovery is near the map to Atlantis (please don't quote me).

Aerin	22 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune These kinds of debates lead nowhere in terms of learning anything about the actual tarot. But perhaps, like those occultists I mentioned above, many people here don't really want to learn... I disagree. On both counts. Debate, when it is conducted in the absence of personal comments and with goodwill on the part of everyone is a way of learning that has an excellent pedigree. Debate backed up with evidence is even better - and there is a difference between evidence and conjecture as jmd so eloquently puts it. My own view is that I've never yet seen anything written about the origins of Tarot card usage and divinatory meanings that wasn't, in one way or another, conjecture. A really good debator understands all perspectives so well that they can argue on any position, and also know the holes in each perspective. They have their opinion, but they still know other arguments inside out. I believe that everyone here wants to learn. They may want to learn different things and in different ways, that's not the same as not wanting to learn. Questioning isn't the same as rejecting out of hand. Aerin

HOLMES	22 May 2003
we all learn in our own way, as we all got our own learning styles just as we all got our own reading styles. has it really been proven that tarot was made in the 15 century ? 1. who made it, 2. who ordered it, 3. what exact date, 4. what did the first tarot look like, (which most think was just extending the minors with the picture ) 5. who say this ? until such exact date is pronounced, all we have is conjecture and studying the tarot from our own point of view. i find those that are new to the tarot find it exciting, mysterious, and try to comprehend the tarot as much as they can in their mind frame. i dont' feel they should be critize for that. once i was talking in chat a long while ago when i was asking can this be applied to the tarot, or can that be applied. and they mentioned something about the history of the tarot. and they said "learn it " until we know the exact history it is impossible to learn but theories, so at this point all we can do is pick the best educated theory and use that as our basis and question everything. i personaly want to learn as much about the tarot as i can, and for me that learning comes through looking at the systems today and try to find correlations. while going on the almost proven theory that tarot was made in the 15 century, again the question remains, who made it, what were their knowledge, their background. I couldn't disagree more. Pseudo-intellectual "debates" about tarot based on conjecture and personal opinion at the expense of historical fact is not my idea of a good time. good debates is the way we critically think through and reasons all possiblities of the tarot. for me the historical fact is not historical enough (or exact enough ) to say yes , it is the only possiblity.

Kiama	22 May 2003
littleneptune: I am sorry you disagree. But that's up to you. You do have the option, if you do not like this method of learning, to not take part in it. That way, you don't have to put up with any 'pseudo-intellectual' debates and not learn anything new. Personally, I see everything as a learning experience. From this debate, I have learned something very important: That my opinions/beliefs about Tarot, are not shared by everybody. I've also learned what the other beliefs out there are. :D You also mention that the origin of Tarot was as a game. Well, if you're so into the historical tradition, you are very welcome to just play Tarocchi. It's a wonderful game. I enjoy a nice Friday evening with it myself. However, we cannot deny what has happened to the Tarot over the last few centuries. It has become 'occultised', whether we like it or not. I intend to make the best use of that. (Aswell as sticking to my love of Tarocchi of course! :D) I began as a baby. Does that mean I need to keep on referring back to my actions as a baby, making them out to be the only actions that are right, or the best actions I can do? No. I have evolved, and grown to be the 18 year old I am today. Just as the Tarot grew and evolved into what it is on it's (Possibly) 500-somethingth birthday. Diana: I think I'd agree with you that the Tarot in its true form began a long time ago, before Marseilles decks. :D Kiama

allibee	22 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune The tarot deck has a history, whether one likes it or not. It was invented in Italy in the 15th Century. Says who??? That is merely ONE school of thought. That is like saying if the bible says the world was created in six days, it MUST be true. If it says Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, it MUST be true. If it says Eve came from Adam's rib, it MUST be true... etc, etc. The WHOLE point of a forum is for debate. If it were just one person's view, or one school of thought, there would be no forum, just statements. I think your comments following the quote above are offensive, one sided and ignorant. A.

Two of Wands	22 May 2003
This has been such an interesting thread. I've certainly learnt a lot, and thought a lot. It's true that Tarot has a history (which did not begin with the Marseille deck) that we can trace back as far as the late thirteen hundreds. What is not clear is whether this is where and when it began or whether it goes back even further. What we know historically, is dotted all over the place and written in different languages. That's why it's so great to discuss and debate, like this, and tie together what people do know, and also enjoy exchanging theories about what we cannot know for sure, but still form interesting possibilities and worthy speculation upon. As for studying historical decks, I have found it very hard to get anything from the Marseilles decks, and find the Visconti decks far more interesting. But, having read all these threads, I certainly take on board what has been said and hold the Marseilles deck in high regard for what it obviously means to those who have transcended its barriers.

Alex	22 May 2003
littleneptune Historical facts may help us understand how something came to be. It does not help decide what something "is". Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune I couldn't disagree more. Pseudo-intellectual "debates" about tarot based on conjecture and personal opinion at the expense of historical fact is not my idea of a good time. In ways you're right here. But it may help you understand other's perspective if you look into other fields as well. For example, psychotherapy, as we know it, began with Freud. It evolved into different branches of the "psychoanalytic school" but also diverged astray beginning with Freud's disciples/students such as Adler and Reich. Other schools, still based upon Freud's basic assumptions, such as Jung's, also wan their followers. Decades latter, coming from another discipline, psychology, we have other schools of psychotherapy emerging, such as behavioral therapy, cognitive and humanistic. These don't need Freud's basic assumptions; they can work without ideas such as unconscious, ego, id and superego, repression etc. And recently, the biochemical approach. There have been heated debates on what the "true" psychotherapy comes to be, which one is more efficient, which one is able to perform a "complete cure" rather than a "makeup cure". Even though conservative psychoanalysts still hold onto their beliefs and try to discredit other forms of therapy, there has been substantial data showing that other forms of therapy, shorter and apparently shallower, work as well, sometimes better. The fact that psychotherapy has a history that roots to Freud does not disallow facts that prove the best approaches to certain problems are not to be found in Freud's teachings. And before someone says my analogy is not good because the Tarot is not a science, I must advance that psychotherapy isn't a science either. It's an art. Alex. Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune These kinds of debates lead nowhere in terms of learning anything about the actual tarot. But perhaps, like those occultists I mentioned above, many people here don't really want to learn...

littleneptune	22 May 2003
Alex--there is a difference between psychoanalytic theory and the tarot. Psychoanalytic theory is just that, a theory. The tarot is an actual, tangible artifact which can be studied. When one studies an artifact to understand its' meaning, one studies the culture in which it arose. The Italian culture is the primary culture in which the tarot arose (tarot meaning the 22 trump cards attached to the standard playing card deck). Italy deserves credit for the invention, and is the main 'context' in which the tarot can be best understood if one cares to comprehend its original meaning. Otherwise, one tends to dismiss the creation of the cards as a 'frivolous cardgame' without truly understanding what the images meant to the Italian people, which upon studying, one will see meant more than simply gambling (for it had philosophical and moral overtones very similar to the occult tarot). The Italian aspect of tarot is being consciously and conspicuously overlooked and ignored. Yet it is the obvious source for card meanings.

Alex	22 May 2003
I disagree with you here, even though obviously there are "differences" between both "artifacts". Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune Alex--there is a difference between psychoanalytic theory and the tarot. Psychoanalytic theory is just that, a theory. I think one can do the same with psychoanalitic theory. For example, in order to understand Freud's idea of "libido repression" one must understand the culture in which it arose etc. Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune The tarot is an actual, tangible artifact which can be studied. When one studies an artifact to understand its' meaning, one studies the culture in which it arose. I don't doubt that. I was just making an analogy between other's replies to you based on arguments of effectiveness of tarot readings, personal biases etc, and what has happend in the history of other fields. I could had mentioned something else than psychoanalysis, it would serve the same purpuse. I'm not against studying the history of the Tarot. I am very much for it, even though I haven't done it. Haven't had time. One day, I will. Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune The Italian culture is the primary culture in which the tarot arose (tarot meaning the 22 trump cards attached to the standard playing card deck). Italy deserves credit for the invention, and is the main 'context' in which the tarot can be best understood if one cares to comprehend its original meaning. Otherwise, one tends to dismiss the creation of the cards as a 'frivolous cardgame' without truly understanding what the images meant to the Italian people, which upon studying, one will see meant more than simply gambling (for it had philosophical and moral overtones very similar to the occult tarot). The Italian aspect of tarot is being consciously and conspicuously overlooked and ignored. Yet it is the obvious source for card meanings. Cheers Alex.

Kiama	22 May 2003
Littleneptune: You have raised some excellent and interesting points, and I think I see where you're coming from. I agree that if one views the Tarot as an "actual, tangible artifact", then one cannot do anything but look to the culture it arose in. It is the same as if we owned statues of Egyptian deities... We cannot truly understand them unless we 'get inside the heads' of the Egyptians themselves... To really find out the 'why', 'what', and 'wherefore'... The difference here though, is that many of us do not view Tarot as an "Actual, tangible artifact" as though it is some kind of archeaological piece. Many of us view it as a "Map of the Universe".... (Quit laughing at the back! ;)) And that includes ALL the universe, not just Italy. I love studying the historical/Italian part of the Tarot deck. However, it plays no major role in how I view the card meanings, how I use the cards, and how I think they relate to this world. To MY world. On a side note, have you ever played any of the variations of Tarocchi? If not, you could try looking for the book 'Twelve Tarot Games' by Dummet. It has the explanation and rules for 12 different Tarocchi games, all of them coming from different countries/provinces in Europe. They are all fairly similar, but some have little extra bits which make the game so much better. If you really want to 'get into the heads' of the Italians who supposedly created the Tarot, I suggest you give the games a try... I don't think anybody would go so far as to not give the inventor of the Tarot the credit he/it/they deserve. But quite frankly, many of us just don't see as much importance in the historical Tarot as you do. And since we still cannot say for certain that the Tarot originated in Italy, it would be pretty difficult for one to truly study it in that way. It's all just theories right now. Feel free to use these theories, but please do not fall into the trap of declaring them true beyond all shades of doubt... Ah, here's something interesting... Ever heard of Descarte's Method of Doubt? It's rather Tower like. It involvings throwing any belief/opinion/assumption out of the window unless it is totally and utterly indubitable. This goes for theories too. Now, Descartes may have gone just a little too far here, but we need to do something very similar, especially with the history of Tarot... We need to reserve our judgement about its true origin until such time as it is indubitably proven. Until that time, we have discussion forums where we can speculate, debate, and converse about what Tarot is, what Tarot does, and what other people think Tarot is... Kiama

littleneptune	22 May 2003
(quote): "And since we still cannot say for certain that the Tarot originated in Italy, it would be pretty difficult for one to truly study it in that way. It's all just theories right now." Wrong. We CAN say for certain that the first tarot deck ever found originated in Italy, sometime in the 15th Century. We have documented evidence of this. It is NOT 'all just theories right now', as you (and others) would like to believe. But you are choosing to ignore these facts. (quote): "We need to reserve our judgement about its true origin until such time as it is indubitably proven." Throwing away historical facts because they are not one hundred percent indisputable is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears to avoid hearing a painful truth.

Kiama	22 May 2003
littleneptune: Again, you miss the point of my post, and ignore bits, add bits in, which I did not say. I did not say that I the first TAROT DECK IN EXISTENCE came from 15th century Italy. That we have as proven fact. I DID say however, that it cannot be proven that Italy in the 15th century is where the Tarot itself originated. There's a big difference. You also talk to me as though I am one of the people who chooses to believe it began in Atlantis, or Egypt, or with the Gypsies. I am not. Surprising as it is, I am actually much more inclined to believe that the Tarot originated in Italy as a game. I am just open to other possibilities and aware of the fact that it isn't entirely indubitable. History is apt to change. It is written by the victors, and is biased in itself. There is always the possibility that we uncover new evidence which totally changes history. That still might happen with the Tarot. I also did not say to 'throw away all historical facts' because they are indubitable. Please read what I write more carefully, it saves us so much trouble... I actually wrote that: Notice in this passage that I am referring to 'reserving judgement' and keeping an open and speculative mind. NOT simply 'throwing all historical facts out of the window'. Descartes may have done that, but I am not advocating it. As for if it is CERTAIN that the Tarot first originated in Italy... You'd better talk to JMD, Diana, Mari Hoshizaki, Ihcoyc... They're the ones who are up on history theories. From what I've learned over in the Historical and Iconograpical forum, it is still only a speculation based on a tiny fraction of evidence. Kiama

Kiama	22 May 2003
Just a side note: I'd rather we didn't make things personal. It's getting pretty close to name-calling right now, which I'm quite upset about. Please remember that we are not here to say 'You're right, I'm wrong'. We're here to discuss what we all think, and be open-minded. You and I both believe the Tarot originated in Italy in the 15th century. That doesn't mean we have to go around calling those who think otherwise ignorant. Instead, we need to remain open-minded and listen to the other theories and speculations. This is not a war between people. It is an examination of issues surrounding Tarot, its origins, and its evolution. Kiama

littleneptune	22 May 2003
Kiama--it is not an offense to say when something is wrong. If one can't say when something is factually wrong, how are we to learn anything true? P.S. It is not being 'open-minded' to ignore historical facts and pretend that they don't exist. I shall never resort to name-calling. This is not a personal argument, it is a factual one (hopefully). I apologize if facts upset you.

Kiama	22 May 2003
Hi littleneptune, I'm not saying it is an offense to say something is wrong. What I do find offensive is sentences such as this: Quote: These kinds of debates lead nowhere in terms of learning anything about the actual tarot. But perhaps, like those occultists I mentioned above, many people here don't really want to learn... Quote: Throwing away historical facts because they are not one hundred percent indisputable is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears to avoid hearing a painful truth. I'm sorry to be picky, but lots of your more recent posts in this thread have been very hurtful, accusing me and others of ignorance and actions which are abhorrent. (Such as some mentioned in the above sentences) You have apologised for the fact that 'facts upset me', which is also offensive to me. You have assumed me to be ignorant and closed-minded... That offends me. You haven't resorted to direct-name calling, but your posts have said things which are just as offensive. I wasn't the only person to bring it up in this thread either. Anyway, back to the thread... You still maintain that there are historical facts that can tell us more about what Tarot is than anything else. I am of the opinion that whilst historical 'facts' are useful, they are no the be-all and end-all. In my opinion, we have to mix the historical understanding/theory with our understanding of what the cards mean to us. After all, we're the ones using them! Otherwise, it's a bit like trying to apply a diagnosis from a doctor to yourself, even if the doctor wrote the diagnosis for somebody else. The Italians (Or whoever invented the Tarot) did of course have their own way of looking at the card meanings (If indeed, there were any at the time... I'm of the opinion that card meanings weren't added onto the Tarot until it got out of Italy.) but if they could do it, why can't we? They're not Gods who are an unquestionable authority: They were humans like you and me. I see nothing wrong in adapting the archetypical images to fit our own lives. It usually works more effectively. Of course, we do need to question how far we can go with this adaptation, before we end up with more of an oracle deck instead of a Tarot deck. And to be honest, I'm not entirely sure how far is too far when we're adapting card meanings. I think many of us would probably agree that as long as we keep the 'essence' (Buzz!) of the card the same, it's still Tarot... This of course means that we are left with decks like the Daughters of the Moon which does significantly change the card meanings, the Majors, and many other things, which many would not regard as a Tarot deck at all. So, how far is too far when we are adapting the Tarot? Kiama

littleneptune	22 May 2003
Kiama--you are free to do anything you want with the cards, of course. But if one wants to LEARN about the tarot in terms of what it might mean, one needs to take ONE'S SELF and one's own opinions out of the picture. And that includes interpretations of my posts as well. They are not about you, per se. They include all the early occultists who chose to ignore and dismiss the already invented Italian card meanings that were used in the early tarot game(s) in favour of their own mystical 'true' definition.

Kiama	22 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune They include all the early occultists who chose to ignore and dismiss the already invented Italian card meanings that were used in the early tarot game(s) in favour of their own mystical 'true' definition. But I'm not so sure there were any invented Italian card meanngs that were used in the early Tarot game(s). I've seen no proof of it, and to be honest, after playing the games for quite a while, I think they really were just gambling and fun. *Ducks from tomatoes* ;) The early occultists did not ignore these 'meanings' in favour of their own 'true definition' either. Many of them simply took something that was already in existence, and put it to a new use. Okay, so some of them told lies about the Tarot and Egypt/the Gypsies/Atlantis, but one does wonder if this was because they truly thought that was true, or if it was to add mystery to the Tarot... But they just took something already in use and used it in a different way. Just like you or I might take a butter knife, previously used for spreading butter on bread, and put it to a new use to inscribe the runes onto clay. (As I did today.) I think the reason why the new use the occultists put the Tarot to has survived so long is simply because it works. And because of this, people have sought to use it aswell. It works. That's a good thing. But I don't think we can say that this use/thought school of the Tarot is any less valid/true/worthy that that the Italians used. What the Tarot has become will one day be history... And you never know, in 500 years time, people might be thinking of us in the same way we're thinking of the Italians 500 years ago! What the Tarot has become may be different to what it began as, but it works, it is useful, and it enriches peoples' lives. You are right that we should not ignore the Tarot's origins, but I don't think it should run the way we use/see the Tarot... For that is down to our own lives and experiences. You say we should leave our own opinions out of it, but that is impossible. We are using the Tarot as a tool for our everyday lives, for guidance, for insight, for understanding. I have managed to gain more spiritual insight through the cards than I ever have through anything else. If one leaves their opinion out of it, then the Tarot becomes nothing more than a museum artifact, to be examined and foresnically tested... It has no value for our own lives. And to be honest, the day something becomes useless in our lives is the day it begins to become extinct. (In my opinion) If we leave our own opinions out of it in order to learn about the Tarot, it just doesn't work... The Tarot exists simply because people have added their own inisghts/opinions/beliefs/ideas to it. Its not a static artifact which teaches us anything. Instead, we teach ourselves about things through the Tarot. In this way, it is impossible to leave our own opinions out of it. Kiama

Two of Wands	22 May 2003
Kiama said: “I don't think anybody would go so far as to not give the inventor of the Tarot the credit he/it/they deserve. But quite frankly, many of us just don't see as much importance in the historical Tarot as you do.” Well even though I’m an ‘Occultist Deck’ fan myself and do not know half as much as I should about historical decks, I do still find them fascinating, and I'm eager to learn more and I DO attach a lot of importance to them. Littleneptune said: “Kiama--it is not an offence to say when something is wrong.” You are right, it is not an offence at all. But it is if you say it in the manner in which you said it to Kiama, especially as it came after a string of posts that, rather than entering into constructive argument with Kiama, decidedly set out to simply attack what she and others are discussing. What makes it worse is that Kiama was NOT wrong in her statement: we CANNOT be certain where and when the first Tarot originated. What we can be certain of, as you point out, is where the earliest deck, currently known, came from and when. There is a big difference. This may have been the first ever Tarot Deck, but there is nothing definite to suggest that this is the case, it may have been a copy of other 70+ card decks that existed in Italy or other countries at that time, but have not survived the passage of time. I do not disagree though that there is evidence to suggest it may be the first, and we would be wrong to ignore that altogether, but I don't think that many of us do ignore it. The key suggestive evidence stems from the introduction of the 56 playing cards, around 1375, some 60 years before the earliest 70+ Visconti deck. It is highly plausible, then, that the artist painting these early decks for the Visconti and Sforza families, around 1450, was the first to create a deck of two arcanas, but it is not conclusive. There is plenty of scope for tying together all historical facts we can get our hands on, and for speculation on possibilities where the facts stop. And I for one am interested in both. Littleneptune, I understand your passion for the history of Tarot, and the fact that you are satisfied to leave it at that. This is entirely valid as long as you don’t feel the need to attack others who are interested in speculating upon what influenced someone in the 1450's to create such a deck... I would take a look through the Telperion Productions site (if you haven’t already), it has some fascinating articles on the historical evolution of the tarot as it is currently known, and certainly gives the Visconti deck the attention it deserves. Telperion Productions: http://www.telp.com/index.html Tarot Evolution: http://www.telp.com/tarot/evolution.htm Visconti http://www.telp.com/tarot/visconti.htm

littleneptune	22 May 2003
Kiama--the occultists did not really put the cards to a new use. The tarot was already being used in Italy as an educational game, and for character analysis, as well as a card game BASED ON THE ALLEGORIES WITHIN THE CARD IMAGES. The game was structured on the philosophical MEANING of the card images, just as tarot is. (quote): "You say we should leave our own opinions out of it, but that is impossible." I say we cannot LEARN about the tarot, or the world, by examining our own opinions.

Two of Wands	22 May 2003
Littleneptune said: _________________________________________________ They include all the early occultists who chose to ignore and dismiss the already invented Italian card meanings that were used in the early tarot game(s) in favour of their own mystical 'true' definition. _________________________________________________ What are the "already invented Italian card meanings"? Where can I read up on them? What would you suggest are the best written sources: published and web-based, where we can simply learn the facts?

Kiama	22 May 2003
The occultists did put it to new use. They added other systems to it for a start: Astrology and Kabbalah to name the two most prominent. They then proceeded to use them for divination aswell. And which game are you talking about? Quote: (quote): "You say we should leave our own opinions out of it, but that is impossible." I say we cannot LEARN about the tarot, or the world, by examining our own opinions. I disagree. (Surprise! I guess we just don't see things the same way! :D) We can learn nothing without opinion. With the Tarot, opinion is essential. We saw this in the debate about the Empress. Your opinion was that the Empress' true meaning lies in the sovereign role. My opinion was that the Empress' meaning lies in other places. The world, Tarot, the Universe... It's all fine and good to learn about them, but to just learn about them you take a passenger seat, and never do anything worthwhile. You never apply what you have learned, which is worthless... If you're not gonna use the knowledge, what's the point in gaining it? History aswell is formed from opinion. Not solely, but it does have the opinion in there. Its how we get theories. Its how we got the theory of the Italian Renaissance Tarot origins. Somebody found something which might point to the Tarot's origin, and other people put all the pieces together. This involved opinion. I think our uses of the Tarot must be different. Can I just ask what you use Tarot for? Maybe it would explain the differences we have here. You see value in studying the history and getting meaning from that. I see that as useful, but find that the value lies in how the cards relate to real life, and the world. Because of the way I view the Tarot, I'm bound to think this way... To me, just studying the Tarot without opinion is like a Christian studying the Bible but not living by what it says. Kiama

Two of Wands	22 May 2003
Moving back to where the topic of the thread had reached... Kiama said: ___________________________________________ The Tarot has become may be different to what it began as, but it works, it is useful, and it enriches peoples' lives. _______________________________________ Well said! :) ____________________________________________________ So, how far is too far when we are adapting the Tarot? _________________________________________________ As far as each individual is prepared to let it. Personally I like Tarot just the way it is now, and will probably turn my nose up at future decks that move away from the collective meanings that most of us are currently used to. Others however will embrace it, call it ¡§the new Tarot¡¨, ¡§Tarot the even better¡¨, ¡§Tarot the way it was always meant to be¡¨¡K etc. ƒº And that is great too. Tarot will evolve, and, for people like me, it may no longer be Tarot, but we shall still retain our Tarot, people of the future will have their Tarot and people of the past still have Tarot!

littleneptune	22 May 2003
Two of Wands--I recommend the Michael Dummett book about the game of Tarot, also his book entitled "A Wicked Pack of Cards", a web site called "Andy's Playing Cards" goes into extensive detail about the Italian history of the tarot deck and the meanings of the cards within the context of the Italian game, and also of course by studying the Italian deck iconography, and the Italian culture and history within the time frame of the creation of the Italian tarot deck (15th Century). Kiama--I use the tarot cards for self-knowledge, to learn about my life situation, to solve problems and to help others to solve problems if I can. But how I use the cards has no bearing on the actual historical facts about the tarot deck itself, where it came from, and what it originally meant to the ones who created it.

Kiama	22 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune Kiama--I use the tarot cards for self-knowledge, to learn about my life situation, to solve problems and to help others to solve problems if I can. I'm curious... How do you do that without adding your own opinion/beliefs/ideas to it...?

Laurel	22 May 2003
I'm going to request that some folks "agree to disagree" and drop the argument that an occultist perspective towards the tarot is 'valid' or 'invalid'. Its raising the wrong kind of vibe and disrupting the flow of the original thread. Laurel

MeeWah	22 May 2003
Please forgive me if I am misunderstanding or taking anything out of context as this is a most complex discussion. As Kiama, ihcoyc, JMD, Two of Wands & others have so eloquently pointed out, such a discussion as this encourages a sharing of both the learned view based on the tangible evidence & that of conjecture. The former provides a basis & the latter possible extrapolations because when one gets down to the nitty-gritty, the evidence of the existance of single cards from presumably fragmented decks & of decks determined to be from a certain time do not necessarily indicate their antecedent(s). We employ the techniques of scientific investigation (albeit loosely) to pool the combined resources & arrive at an inevitable diverse view; however, we can learn from *all views*. Personally, I am not debating the historical or scholarly aspects of this discussion, but I am dashing under Diana's umbrella (see page 6 of this thread) as I see as Diana does-- "... that Tarot, in its true form, began a long long long long time ago, before the Marseilles decks."

Aerin	22 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama You say we should leave our own opinions out of it, but that is impossible. We are using the Tarot as a tool for our everyday lives, for guidance, for insight, for understanding. I have managed to gain more spiritual insight through the cards than I ever have through anything else. If one leaves their opinion out of it, then the Tarot becomes nothing more than a museum artifact, to be examined and foresnically tested... It has no value for our own lives. Kiama By coincidence, I have to hand a relevant quote from Heinz von Foerster (see http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/HvF.htm) regarding people's ability to be truly objective: "It is syntactically and semantically correct to say that subjective statements are made by subjects. Thus, correspondingly, we may say that objective statements are made by objects. It is only too bad that these damned things don't make any statements" :D Aerin

littleneptune	22 May 2003
(quote): "I'm going to request that some folks "agree to disagree" and drop the argument that an occultist perspective towards the tarot is 'valid' or 'invalid'. Its raising the wrong kind of vibe and disrupting the flow of the original thread." I understand that this discussion is becoming painful. But isn't this thread about the 'birth of the tarot'? I am showing how the tarot was 'born' before the occultists used it. To simply 'drop the argument' would be more pleasant, I agree. But it wouldn't solve the problem about how the tarot came to be.

Aerin	22 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune (quote): "I'm going to request that some folks "agree to disagree" and drop the argument that an occultist perspective towards the tarot is 'valid' or 'invalid'. Its raising the wrong kind of vibe and disrupting the flow of the original thread." I understand that this discussion is becoming painful. But isn't this thread about the 'birth of the tarot'? I am showing how the tarot was 'born' before the occultists used it. To simply 'drop the argument' would be more pleasant, I agree. But it wouldn't solve the problem about how the tarot came to be. Valid or invalid usage of the tarot, to me, has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to when and where the first pack of cards turned up and who drew them and what use they made of them. Historical usage and origins of the Tarot is an interesting and valuable subject in its own right. Understanding this does not, for me, mean that every one who has used the Tarot since and adapted it is inferior and that the uses to which it has been put have absolutely no value. You can 'show' all you like, and it still doesn't change a thing about whether I think some current uses of Tarot are useful or not. It also doesn't help me to understand the opinions of the first people we can identify who ever used Tarot for divination or for teaching purposes. Cynthia Giles's book "The Tarot History Mystery and Lore" as its title suggests, splits out what is known of the history of the tarot from other aspects. People since have made their own stories and myths around the cards. Some of these are useful to some people, and this can be respected without having to change any historical knowledge. Aerin

Diana	22 May 2003
Dagobert Pumperdinkle e-mailed me. He's changed the bananas to rolling-pins. He wants to know if this is okay with us Aeclectitians. Kiama asked "How much has the Tarot changed since it's "birth"?" I believe Tarot cannot be changed. Only people's views towards it and their perceptions. Of course, if you look at Tarot with blue tinted glasses or yellow tinted glasses or red tinted glasses, then it will look very different, but it doesn't change the Tarot - it is always the same colour. Ideally we should take off our glasses. But as human beings, is that possible? And are our different views right or wrong? I don't know. Can 2+2 make 5? Maybe...............

littleneptune	22 May 2003
(quote): "You can 'show' all you like, and it still doesn't change a thing about whether I think some current uses of Tarot are useful or not." My statements have never been about whether some current uses of Tarot are useful or not. And as for 'you can show all you like, and it still doesn't change a thing', I'm sad to see that this is indeed the case. I think my point about learning has been made here.

ihcoyc	22 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Two of Wands What are the "already invented Italian card meanings"? Where can I read up on them? What would you suggest are the best written sources: published and web-based, where we can simply learn the facts? I don't have access to the full text, but I have read about, and seen pictures of, one pre-Etteilla system for divining with tarot cards. The one I know of used only the suit of coins. There were apparently no fixed meanings for each card in it, either; rather you would draw cards and then look them up in a table based on what you had drawn, where various fortune cookie style fortunes in bits of doggerel verse were put under the various categories. This obviously would not be something anyone could really "learn" or internalize, especially since I was given to understand that the system was rather arbitrary. It resembled instead the systems I have seen for divination by dice or dominoes.

Aerin	22 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by littleneptune (quote): "You can 'show' all you like, and it still doesn't change a thing about whether I think some current uses of Tarot are useful or not." My statements have never been about whether some current uses of Tarot are useful or not. And as for 'you can show all you like, and it still doesn't change a thing', I'm sad to see that this is indeed the case. I think my point about learning has been made here. littleneptune, I am sad that you see fit to chop my sentance off in the middle and then reinterpret it for your own ends thus changing the intended meaning. Diana, I am of the view that 5+5 make chocolate. At least today I am. Would you like some? Oh, and I also have some champagne. On the taking off glasses thing, I don't think it is possible, that could be because I'm doing a social psychology course at the moment so I'm practicing believing that. Aerin

Diana	22 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Diana Ideally we should take off our glasses. But as human beings, is that possible? Diana used the word "ideally". Is she sure that this would be ideal? Then she said "is that possible?". Should she not have added: "and is it advisable?" Aerin: as long as it's not dark chocolate, I'd love 5 squares (two on the right of the slab and two on the left).

firemaiden	22 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Diana Dagobert Pumperdinkle e-mailed me. He's changed the bananas to rolling-pins. He wants to know if this is okay with us Aeclectitians. It's inspired, Diana. Far better than soft and curvy bananas...hmm... though it doesn't quite convey the "shazam!" aspect of the suit...The wooden spoon perhaps?

HOLMES	22 May 2003
what are the true facts then ? like i posted before into we get specific which noble family ask for them to get made,. what artisan guild house made them, who was the person who directed the making of the cards. where did the idea come from . i did a history check last night on amazon, and lots of the book comes from a disection of other 19 century authors . there hasn't been a book made in english where the peson goes to italy to translate these documents which review for the barbara walker book about tarot says some exist in the vacitican. and i doubt (i may be bias here just on popular view ) that they will let in anyone to see those documents. history is good to see that we don't repeat the same mistakes, to see the traditions behind ideas and ways of doing things. we dont' want to resort to being a tarot heirophant here and say it is the only way, (much like the bible for so many is real, for others it is a story of mythos, and for others a progganda machine, for example ) there is history in the bible, teachings, and linage, yet it is clearly from their point of view. (using it as a example to explain what i am seeing here ) the strong points made for the history and you got to read the history to truly understand the tarot , sounds like old testment thinking, that the new testment doens't mean nothing. lol. ok enough of that. umm, i have read lots of books, we as individuals have differnt books i am sure, i do not i will read the devil picture book, the occult tarot history, tarot meditions, the wicked pack of cards, giles tarot history and lore , and stuart enclyodpia 2, and three, (i only got 1) and i am sure i will know more but tarot is a life time of reading , it does not do to critize those who haven't read one book when there is so many out there giving views, (the same goes for websites) and versions of history. the tarot so far has been trace to italy , around early 1400s, some say late 1300 depending on what book you read, that is like saying there was a tournment for the intercontinel belt to make pat patterson the champion (there wasn't) but that they say in the history book that follow the wwe version of wrestling. (there is no historical record of any tournment taking place anywhere in the time period ) but for sure pat patterson was the first intercontinel champion, i dont' know myself what influences were going on in italy, those that say the tarot was the ancestors of the playing cards for example are now debunked in reviews as people who are ill flawed history of the tarot . (it was the popular view at the time ) we know now that the playing cards were around first before the pictures of the unumbered major arcana (that is why some say the major arcana is the true tarot for example ) if we use that logic, then the tarot if was origianly just the major arcana and adapted the playing cards to be the minor arcana, the pictures must of came from somewhere, 1. the artisan who was employed to create a new card game could of just made them up right ? (which leads me to think he tapped into the mysteries of life to do so :O)) 2. they adapted the images from something, if so , I WANT TO KNOW WHAT (not putting the onus on anyone here to tell me so for until someone tells me from a history document, it will pretty much specualation .. ) in regards to speculations and thinking of the possiblities, in the words of ray of the ghostbusters from part two when winston is telling him of all the things they been through, "yeah but a ride" i love that statment. and boy has the tarot been a ride, and as i understand it more the more faster i want to go inorder to understand it more. even crowley is on record (as least in my mytiscal tarot by rosemary guiley quotes him as saying so ) that some cards he didn't understand fully and other card he just has the base ideas about, to paraphrase. if he in all his years of study couldnt' understand it to masterful level , it gives us hope , and a lesson, that the tarot even as it's masterful levels (giving years of study and experience ) is only beginning to be understood.

HOLMES	22 May 2003
it wouldn't be advisable though possible for me for if i take off my glasses i would be almost legally blind, (things be blurry and i wouldnt' be able to read the text or barely able to see a black line, in fact i just took off my glasses to look , it is just a squint of a black on the screen ) however if i attuned my psychic eye to the tarot i am sure i can see more though i look for tools to aid me seeing. the tarot has changed a lot, i can't wait til to i track down tarot and its symbolism by o niel to learn how :O) (that is the first book that comes to mind when thinking of reviews ) HEY THAT IS IT , without the glasses as tool (the tarot as tool for looking at the universe ) those with us with less then perfect eye sight would not see thing as well. and for those with us with perfect eye sight, the tarot become like binoculars, and a microscope based on what we want to see the maco or the microcosm. that is how tarot has changed , the way we use it in our lives.

allibee	22 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by HOLMES [b] what are the true facts then ? 2. they adapted the images from something, if so , I WANT TO KNOW WHAT (not putting the onus on anyone here to tell me so for until someone tells me from a history document, it will pretty much specualation .. ) Have a look at this Holmes, quite interesting images I think you'll agree: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Musee/7685/cardsc.htm then hit this link to images on another page of theirs and scroll down: http://it.geocities.com/a_pollett/cards64.htm Are these not interesting? I say interesting as I am open to possibility and plausibility. On the other hand I could argue that because 'Andy's Playing Cards' says it's true.... it MUST be, LOL A.

Alex	22 May 2003
There is a biological law that says "stagnation is Death", i.e. any system that fails to adapt, will perish. Languages, scientific theories, living things, the universe, all things under and above the earth... evolve. Evolution is change through time. Everything changes. How can the Tarot manage to stay the same? And if it did, wouldn't it be a reason for us to worry that it's doomed to be ... weeded out? Alex. Quote: Originally posted by Diana I believe Tarot cannot be changed. Only people's views towards it and their perceptions. Of course, if you look at Tarot with blue tinted glasses or yellow tinted glasses or red tinted glasses, then it will look very different, but it doesn't change the Tarot - it is always the same colour.

Two of Wands	22 May 2003
Good point Alex, nicely made!

MeeWah	22 May 2003
Furthering Diana's thought that Tarot cannot be changed, I am employing the most generic terms for simplicity in presenting the following: It is largely agreed that Tarot is based on a system of symbols or multiple inter-related symbols. Such symbols are considered archetypal or universal in that they span a broad spectrum of understandings, cross cultural & ideological boundaries--which is why whilst study of symbols or certain images can enhance the experience, it is not always necessary to begin an understanding. The representations of *the essence* of this multi-faceted wisdom remain static because of their validity, their anchor in Truth. The myriad of meanings & interpretations are but expressions or aspects of that Truth. Whilst the images accompanying such symbolic representations can change according to the purveyor of same (that is, through different deck designs or themes, even alterations according to the particular perception), the general basis does not change because of its basis in spiritual Truth. The understanding with which such is viewed can change or evolve since the individual understanding changes or evolves. Also, we are evolving as a species; however, what already is does not evolve per se. For lack of better terminology, it just is. Btw: that is just a personal view.

Cerulean	23 May 2003
http://www.studyabroad-florence.com/catalog/saga/sagami120.htm The course is based on the study of tarot cards which have very old origins. They were in fact known in ancient Egypt and China, and introduced in the Western world in the XIV century. Throughout the ages, many artists such as Antonio Cicognara, Bonifacio Bembo, Marziano da Tortona, and the Zavatti brothers created figures that were inspired from tarot cards. Several writers and poets also took inspiration from the cards, including Francesco Petrarca, Luigi Pulci, Matteo Maria Boiardo, Pietro Aretino, Teofilo Falengo, Joris-Karl Huysmans, T. S. Eliot, Andrè Breton, and Italo Calvino. Tarot card symbols and their meanings are explored. I don't see the course being offered in the schedules, but it's listed in the catalogue. Maybe some of the names or themes will assist as people work on their own research. I was fascinated with Tom Tadforlittle's discussion on Marziano da Tortona (I did a google search for tarot and birds, a theme that I like, along with tarots and nature symbolism). Many of the names above are unfamiliar to me, so this is a nice starting point. Best wishes. Mari H.

RiccardoLS	23 May 2003
Hi everyone, I have been catching up with this thread, and with a few similar in the historical-iconographic section. It seem to me there were too different approaches to the question. One I may call "historical". The basic is that history, even if highly subjective, and open to debate, has certain strict rules. According to an historical point of view: speculations based on opinions or not supported by proven facts are unacceptable. The second I may call "psychological". The basic of it focalize on the way Tarot is seen, perceived used: subjective. According the the a psychological point of view: the limits of the discussion needed in order to further the historical approach are unacceptable, as they cut out most of what should be said. Should we choose one approach? I don't think so. But I think it was and it is must dangerous for the sake of discussion mixing the two approach giving them for granted, without being fully in conscience that they have different logics and languages. Willy or nolly we wuold be "intellectually uncorrect", reaching a conclusion "true" in one approach and forcing it as "true" on the other field as well (and it's not necessarily so). I can emphatize strongly with Littleneptune barely compressed rage on many not historical answer to what he perceived as an historical subject. And I can emphatize as well on the offence taken by many. It's just that they are two totally different topics, whit teh same title. (imho). And I'm interested in both, but I shiver at the thought of both togheter. :) Riccardo

Aerin	23 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Diana Aerin: as long as it's not dark chocolate, I'd love 5 squares (two on the right of the slab and two on the left). *hands over the chocolate* Re: glasses - Social psychologists spend a lot of time being 'reflexive' i.e. attempting to frame their investigations and understandings in the context of what they know about their glasses of whatever hue. That's a half way house, don't pretend you can take them off or just ignore them, but rather be open about them and use them as a resource to increase understanding. Riccardo, may I say 'exactly' in relation to the distinction between different approaches, hence why I like the approach Cynthia Giles takes and that I referred to in a previous post. I wonder if there is also a third approach, maybe 'spiritual': for myself, I tend to follow the historical and the psychological approaches, and do not currently believe in a higher power outside humanity in the Tarot's creation or use. However, I know that a lot of people take the more spiritual approach and I find their views very interesting and well worth discussing. I do however find that an understanding of all aspects of Tarot do feed off each other i.e. the history does give me insight into the psychological, as does the spiritual. While they feed off each other, I have never seen a way in which one diminishes another since they are talking about different subject matter and have different epistomologies. That's why historical knowledge (which Michael Dummett has researched extensively as far as I am aware) can not prove to me that modern psychological uses are not valid - to me, they are talking about entirely different things. I think that is also tied in with my beliefs on the spiritual approach: if I were to subscribe to a spiritual origin, then I would have a very different view of modern decks and card meanings because instead of judging them against 'are they useful to me and/or others right now' I would be judging them against 'the meanings originally imparted by the Higher Conscious Mind'. Like the Ten Commandments sort of a thing. But I'm not. Aerin

baba-prague	23 May 2003
Originally posted by Diana Dagobert Pumperdinkle e-mailed me. He's changed the bananas to rolling-pins. He wants to know if this is okay with us Aeclectitians. ______________________ No, it is NOT! The bananas gave that authentic Jamaican voodoo touch. Tell him that if he simply makes the pentacles into pineapples, the deck will be perfect...

Aerin	23 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by baba-prague Originally posted by Diana Dagobert Pumperdinkle e-mailed me. He's changed the bananas to rolling-pins. He wants to know if this is okay with us Aeclectitians. ______________________ No, it is NOT! The bananas gave that authentic Jamaican voodoo touch. Tell him that if he simply makes the pentacles into pineapples, the deck will be perfect... but what about the cocoa-beans? And the coconuts? Aerin

allibee	23 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by RiccardoLS I can emphatize strongly with Littleneptune barely compressed rage on many not historical answer to what he perceived as an historical subject. Hi Riccardo I think we have all given our views on the historical aspect, which is that YES, there is this deck and it's the earliest known deck to be in anyone's possession. HOWEVER that does not mean to say there are not earlier, much earlier decks, does it? Just because they have not been found YET or have been lost through time, doesn't mean to say they were never created. EXAMPLE: I can trace my family back to the 1700's through TANGIBLE recorded history such as parish records and census records. I have no further evidence before the 1700's at this time - does that mean my ancestors never existed before the 1700's? - I think not! Also, as I mentioned on Page one of this thread, post 3, the tarot to me is a tool, a means, a medium. How people use it, have used it and will use it is a matter of evolution. These two topics are perfectly suited to one another as there are NO definative answers, only definative opinions to which we are all entitled. I wasn't around in the 1400's anymore than Littleneptune, Diana, Kiama, you or anyone else on here for that matter. Therefore NO ONE can validate the origins of the tarot species, LOL. It is open to conjecture, just as the uses of it are. A.:O)

Two of Wands	23 May 2003
I think you've said it all Allibee. Your right that we have historical evidence of the Tarot as far back as 15th Century Italy, but there is nothing conlusive in this evidence to state that this is definately where it started. I love learning about the history of Tarot, and I really want to know as much about the real facts as possible. But things get very vague once we get back as far as the 15th Century. "It appears obvious that by the 1400s playing cards had already entered the European continent, but how this happened, and when, is still a matter of debate." Source: Andy's Playing Cards @ http://l-pollett.tripod.com/cards3.htm Exactly, it's a matter of debate not anger or frustration!

Aerin	23 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by allibee Hi Riccardo I wasn't around in the 1400's anymore than Littleneptune, Diana, Kiama, you or anyone else on here for that matter. Therefore NO ONE can validate the origins of the tarot species, LOL. It is open to conjecture, just as the uses of it are. A.:O) How about if I invoked a past life :D *runs away and hides* I've also had a thought regarding tarot meanings, which is that the accepted meanings of words change over time. So if you take a particular text describing a tarot card from, say for the sake of argument, the 1800's (date is completely irrelevant to the point I am making), chances are that the meaning that you make will be different from that of a 1800's person. Therefore it would be important to understand the meaning of the day. As an example of the sort of thing I mean, see here http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/wordofmouth.shtml - Radio 4's Word of Mouth was investigating changes in English usage on the 16th May programme. Aerin

Alex	23 May 2003
if he perceived the question as a historical one. Because the original question pertains another issue. "If we change the meanings of the cards, do we still have a Tarot deck?". This is a problem of classification. How we classify the objects/ideas in our world, how we struture information? Diana's argument is that the main criterion for defining the Tarot is historical (as far as I understand), others advanced other arguments, such as usefullness, number of cards and suits etc. There is NO objective criterion for classifying things into categories. What holds in most fields is CONSENSUS and AUTHORITY. Considering that an assumption of the "historical criterion", according to some here, is that the Tarot does not change, the issue of when the first deck arose is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Why? There has been no evolution, no change (so they say), therefore, today's "true Tarot" must be the same as the "Tarot" of 500 years ago, and if there was Tarot in the bronze age, it must have been the same, other than of course, carved in bronze. Alex. Quote: I can emphatize strongly with Littleneptune barely compressed rage on many not historical answer to what he perceived as an historical subject

RiccardoLS	23 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Aerin I wonder if there is also a third approach, maybe 'spiritual': for myself, I tend to follow the historical and the psychological approaches, and do not currently believe in a higher power outside humanity in the Tarot's creation or use. However, I know that a lot of people take the more spiritual approach and I find their views very interesting and well worth discussing. I do however find that an understanding of all aspects of Tarot do feed off each other i.e. the history does give me insight into the psychological, as does the spiritual. Hello Aerin, I agree with you. :) I was not urging to choose. :) I was merely referring to the language of the discussion. I think that some flamelike posts and some misunderstandings came from confusion between these approaches, rather than from lack of respect. Quote: Originally posted by Allibee EXAMPLE: I can trace my family back to the 1700's through TANGIBLE recorded history such as parish records and census records. I have no further evidence before the 1700's at this time - does that mean my ancestors never existed before the 1700's? - I think not! Hello Allibee. Again I was not even trying to say that "objective" (sort of) is much nobler than "subjective", or that ones negates the other. I was not even stating a personal opinion, and frankly I'm surprised my post has been intepreted this way. I just think... that I respect both "science" and "faith", but usually I prefer to talk about one or talk about the other. I venture very carefully on the middle ground among the two, even if it's most interesting. But it's also the most difficult to walk upon... Usually, I noticed that Science and Faith answer to totally different questions... even if the question may be written the same: "how the universe originated?" My impression again was that each "side" gave for granted that the question was the one they have been thinking and were irritated when someone - with a different question in mind - went out of topic. :) Only after having answered each question separatedly, it's safe to mix the answers and to think about that. As this things just not would touch the trivial question at hand, but even the age-long questions of the mutaul limits of science and faith. or in this case of history, psychology and spirituality. (this will be my last post on the subject. I really just wanted to help understanding, and not awaking the flame war again) Riccardo

Alex	23 May 2003
MeeWah This I think was the essence of Kiama's original question, i.e., how much can we change the representation of these symbols and still have the "same thing". Quote: Originally posted by MeeWah The representations of *the essence* of this multi-faceted wisdom remain static because of their validity, their anchor in Truth. The myriad of meanings & interpretations are but expressions or aspects of that Truth. Whilst the images accompanying such symbolic representations can change according to the purveyor of same (that is, through different deck designs or themes, even alterations according to the particular perception), the general basis does not change because of its basis in spiritual Truth. I am OK with an unchanging "universal truth", taken as an assumption, but the way we represent this Truth may change, as you have said here. Regarding our evolution as a species, I will dare to advance that since the Tarot emerged as we know it today, no matter when it happened, if 800 years ago, or 1 000 even, time was not sufficient to change the basic "archetypal structures" in our species. I'm using the term here according with Jung, wich humbly speaking, can be reduced to "instincts". So I agree with you here, the reality these universal symbols (archetypal images) point back to has probably not changed significantly, and will not change significantly until we manage to destroy ourselves and the entire earth with us. Quote: Originally posted by MeeWah The understanding with which such is viewed can change or evolve since the individual understanding changes or evolves. Also, we are evolving as a species; however, what already is does not evolve per se. For lack of better terminology, it just is. Btw: that is just a personal view. Regards Alex.

allibee	23 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Alex Regarding our evolution as a species, I will dare to advance that since the Tarot emerged as we know it today, no matter when it happened, if 800 years ago, or 1 000 even, time was not sufficient to change the basic "archetypal structures" in our species. I'm using the term here according with Jung, wich humbly speaking, can be reduced to "instincts". So I agree with you here, the reality these universal symbols (archetypal images) point back to has probably not changed significantly, and will not change significantly until we manage to destroy ourselves and the entire earth with us. Hi Alex Whilst I understand you were referring to Meewah, for the benefit of the cheap seats - where I'm sitting, LOL - I have no idea what you are saying here. Could you explain it to me as if to a child please, because it's a bit too scholarly for me to understand. Thanks Riccardo... what flame wars? :confused: I thought this was a debate. A.

Aerin	23 May 2003
allibee, does this link help at all, http://www.acs.appstate.edu/~davisct/nt/jung.html or perhaps this http://outer-rim.lweb.net/mythos/strange.html Aerin x

firemaiden	23 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Alex There is NO objective criterion for classifying things into categories. What holds in most fields is CONSENSUS and AUTHORITY. Ah! returning to our wolves (et à nous moutons): while wolves and dogs are classified as separate species (canis lupus vs. canus familiaris )by concensus and authority, some authorities still hold out to classify the dog as a sub-species of wolf -- canis lupus familiaris. It is possible that one day the consensus might change. It might allow us to agree to peacefully disagree, if we consider the RWS not as an oracle (dog) but as a sub-species of tarot (domesticated variety of wolf). I just received my Spirit of Flowers deck in the mail. I think I will classify this as a partly tarot-inspired oracle. P.S. As a special bonus for dog-loving tarotists: an interesting article on Dog and Wolf DNA

allibee	23 May 2003
Thanks Aerin. So what Alex is saying is Archetypes=instincts, no change in those since beginning of human time, won't change until end of human time. *Allibee gives herself a star and a cookie :O)* But whilst that is true, it's how we deal with those Archetypes/Instincts that changes over time, according to social climate and personal interpretation. A.

HOLMES	23 May 2003
allibe what i think she is saying is , as a species we havne't evolved enought to change the basic archetypes (which to my understanding has been there since we had conscious thought. and our understanding of them has evolved ). so alex is agreeing that it hasn't change, and will not change "signifacntly " until we mange to destory ourselves and the entire earth with us. where fore i think the point will be moot for there will be no one around to consider the tarot at its higher meanings or its mundane for we will be all dead. which hopefuly it doens't come to that but instead let say 500 years from now(i like to see it sooner say 50,,no 30 then i will be 58 :O) our knowledge of the tarot would of increased signficantly to answer the arctypical questions on a greater detail and depths that make us look like the stone age. (it is true example freud is mostly discredited these days (from my understanding ) and i suspect in the next 30 years jung theories will beginningg to be discredited as incomplete (my personal opnion ) for we are now in the 2000s.(didn't jung die in the 60s, i never really studied him just the tarot books mention of him, hell the jungian tarot doesn't even go into depths on jung) it can be liken to there will never be another king of rock and roll , so there will never be another johnny cash or jung. but gives it 30 year and we will coem across new psychology theories, understanding. (and in the case of music some new music legends i am sure ) and if i am still alive then and the earth is still here :O) i wil be here to try to relate it to the tarot as best as i can

Kiama	23 May 2003
Blimey guys, I come back from a 3hour Philosophy exam... I see about 40 extra posts in this thread! Tis great! :D Y'know, I feel like I'm back in school again, cuz I'm learning so much... (We don't learn anything in Uni! })) I don't really have anything to add, because anything I was gonna say has pretty much been said already, by Meewah, Alex, and Allibee. (Thanks guys! :D) WHat I am really interested in though is those Islamic cards... Mamluk? Firstly, where can I get a deck!? The idea that our Minor Arcana originated in the East is quite new to me, and I'd love to get hold of a copy of the deck so I can see where it fits into the 'Tarot evolution'... But that gets me to thinking... It looks like the Minor Arcana were added to the Trumps, and that the two weren't invented to go together originally. Does this mean that Tarot should only have 22 cards? }) When did somebody add the two together...? Why...? Gonna get me a Mamluk deck... *Kiama runs off in search of one, Tarot-fever raging through her* Kiama

allibee	23 May 2003
Awww Kiama, I think they are only under glass at the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul!!! Prove me wrong though - I'd love you to - as I want some too, hehehe A.

baba-prague	23 May 2003
Just to throw some more material into this interesting thread, there is a great interview with Ron Decker here: http://www.tarotpassages.com/deckerint.htm He has an interesting view which, if I understand correctly, is that the historians who say that tarot was definitely invented only as a game may not be quite right. He is a serious academic researcher himself, so this is an unusual and controversial stance. I won't try to summarise more here as I couldn't do it justice - but well worth reading. By the way, he's quoted as saying one thing that I really like and that relates beautifully to this thread: "Ron went on to explain that theologians once were able to interpret certain biblical passages on four levels: historical, moral, spiritual, and mystical. "If the Bible can clearly be read that way, why not another medium? Why not the tarot cards?" " Yes! Why not? Karen

Diana	23 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama Does this mean that Tarot should only have 22 cards? }) When did somebody add the two together...? Why...? The Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines tarot as such: "any of a set of 22 pictorial playing cards used for fortune-telling and serving as trumps in tarok". Note that they only talk of 22 cards. Tarok is defined as: "An old card game popular in central Europe and played with a pack containing 40, 52, or 56 cards equivalent to modern playing cards plus the 22 tarots". I find interesting the term "tarots" (plural) in the last definition, to designate the 22 Major Arcana. I remind you that many French tarotists are not interested in the minors. For many of them, only the 22 Major Arcana are of great and sacred importance. Tonight I was playing tarok (the game) with my husband and Kaz. It was pretty obvious to us that the 22 Trumps (atouts in French) which are used in this game must have originated separately and then added to a card game. For what reasons? Most of these non-documented-in-an-alphabet-theories are not fashionable to talk about.

HOLMES	23 May 2003
For what reasons? Most of these non-documented-in-an-alphabet-theories are not fashionable to talk about. /quote what does thou mean diana ? that the theories are not documented in writing . or that the theories are not documented as they dont' follow the 22 letters of the qabbalah ? (which is based on hebrew 22 letters of the aphabet, for paths, which is generally associated with the majors ) sure talk about them diana, for that is how we learn by disucussing :O)

Diana	23 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by HOLMES what does thou mean diana ? that the theories are not documented in writing . Sorry Holmes! I expressed myself very badly (it is getting to be very late here - way way way past my bedtime.) I meant that there are no known historical documents in museums or libraries to back up the various theories in the written word. I used the word "alphabet" in my above post, for I believe that the pictures on the Tarot cards, for example, are themselves clues of the origin of Tarot. And sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. I also believe that oral tradition can be very helpful, but many people don't.

Alex	23 May 2003
She got it rigth. Jung's archetypes can be very grossly equated to the biological concept of "instinct". Not a 100% match though, make sure you get that too. Cheers Alex. Quote: Originally posted by allibee Thanks Aerin. So what Alex is saying is Archetypes=instincts, no change in those since beginning of human time, won't change until end of human time. *Allibee gives herself a star and a cookie :O)* But whilst that is true, it's how we deal with those Archetypes/Instincts that changes over time, according to social climate and personal interpretation. A.

Diana	23 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by baba-prague The bananas gave that authentic Jamaican voodoo touch. Tell him that if he simply makes the pentacles into pineapples, the deck will be perfect... But he thinks that this would not provide people with the self-expression that may make his deck attractive, and which will become a novelty in the Tarot world. He also reminds you, with all due respect, that his deck is esoteric (he has learned how to spell this word) and not exotic. He thinks you have not yet understood the Essence of his Tarot deck. He also has to think about the marketing aspects, you see, if he wants to make a little bit of money out this deck. Something new, something different. Something that people will talk about as the "New Tarot". The first deck that has a suit (Hues) that is not quite a suit. A biologically evolving Tarot.

Moongold	24 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Diana Kiama: I could name a lot of the cards, but as always, I refer to their 10 of Swords. If they changed the 10 of Swords into a picture of someone very devastated, why can't someone else take 10 Swords and draw someone juggling them in a circus and tell people that the card means a need for being very adept at what one does? Then you say that I went too far when I spoke about changing the elements and their essence. I have seen that done SO often on modern Tarot decks (like Pumpkins. Or Birds and Trees. Just to give an example.) I have just begun to read this thread and am posting without having read to the end but I was afraid of losing the place and my thought process by the time I got through every post. I would like people to look at the Tarot of the Sephiroth because it does not use the RWS imagery or meanings. I really love this deck. It is based on Qabalah and the imagery of the minors is based on elemental associations. In fact and in spirit it is more like the Tarot de Marseilles although the imagery is contemporary - nothing like the Marseilles. The Sephiroth astrological and Qabalistic associations are evident on every card. Diana, I have a sense you are completely committed to the Marseilles and think that you will probably not like this deck because it has a different sense of grace and perspective. Perhaps it is like asking you to drink out of modern glass when you have been drinking from 17th century crystal goblets all your life. I acknowledge that your position is much more complex and sophisticated than I just implied. Forgive me for reducing it in this way. In a similar vein, I still prefer Beethoven to the Beatles. I love Tarot of the Sephiroth because it is fresh, strong and rich with colour, imagery and meaning. Ten of Swords: A. Astrological attribution? Sun in Gemini. B: Principal image? Ten Swords form the pattern of the Tree of Life. C: Theme? Man's over reliance on the logical mind in relation to the physical plane Colours are critical in this deck, being regarded as vibrational energy and the different spheres have colours attributed to them. The Majors *vibrate* with symbolism that is phenomenal - the Hermit is like no other. The Minor Arcana are impersonal. The creator of the deck invites Readers to work from their inner realms in discovering meaning. This is such a refreshing and vibrant deck and puts a new cast on what is possible with Tarot. Please go out of your way to have a look at it. It is stunning :) I have gone out of my way to get very different decks. I love Rachel Pollack's Shining Tribe and also Tarot of the Old Path. Am just playing with Thoth and love it too but am still a bit tentative. God (or however you understand the higher power), speaks through different spiritual beliefs and religions. I don't have a problem with the different Tarots, although I prefer some to others. Is the key question about the primary purpose of Tarot? I think that what is important is that there is some integrity and substance to the principles underlying the deck and the of the Reader. Now I'll go and read the rest of the thread and hope I haven't stepped on anyone's toes. It's such a huge thread, I might have a meal with it. Forgive me if the discussion has moved on from where I belatedly entered it. Many blessings

Aerin	24 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Diana But he thinks that this would not provide people with the self-expression that may make his deck attractive, and which will become a novelty in the Tarot world. He also reminds you, with all due respect, that his deck is esoteric (he has learned how to spell this word) and not exotic. He thinks you have not yet understood the Essence of his Tarot deck. He also has to think about the marketing aspects, you see, if he wants to make a little bit of money out this deck. Something new, something different. Something that people will talk about as the "New Tarot". The first deck that has a suit (Hues) that is not quite a suit. A biologically evolving Tarot. Has he thought of adding scratch 'n sniff elements to the cards? They might help people really connect with the deck. Aerin ps Moongold, off to look at Tarot of the Sepiroth

baba-prague	24 May 2003
Diana wrote: He also has to think about the marketing aspects, you see, if he wants to make a little bit of money out this deck. Something new, something different. Something that people will talk about as the "New Tarot". The first deck that has a suit (Hues) that is not quite a suit. A biologically evolving Tarot. __________________________________ Ah, but if he adds the pineapples this can be the first deck that includes cocktail recipes in the LWB - and then he could make a series of cocktail stirrers in the shapes of the Majors - although I fear that some would be less suitable than others... (Diana - I think you are secretly doing market research, are you sure Dagobert is not your alter ego?)

allibee	24 May 2003
ROFL :O) Allison www.tarotpeople.com

Moongold	25 May 2003
Well, I've read through the thread twice now and learnt a huge amount. It's as though I appeared after the storm however. Thanks to everyone for the rich information in this thread. Tarot for the Sephiroth is really worth looking at but it won't please everyone, and something would be wrong if it did, I guess. Good evening, everyone

Alex	25 May 2003
such detail would qualify it as a new species, I'm sorry. Quote: Originally posted by Diana The first deck that has a suit (Hues) that is not quite a suit. A biologically evolving Tarot. May be some folks will find this interestinghttp: www.tarothermit.com/letter.htm People who may be interested in classification theory in general, that's the best page to start: http://www.pitt.edu/~csna/ I would like to see someone doing a clustering analysis of the Tarot decks available. Clustering analysis is what I do for research, some people apply it to linguistics, DNA sequence, languages, religions etc. Worthy taking a look. Cheers Alex.

Diana	25 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Alex such detail would qualify it as a new species, I'm sorry. Darn! You mean like the Rider Waite? :D (Dagobert! Come over here and read this last post!)

Alex	25 May 2003
I don't know enough to tell that, Diana. We may be kidding but there's some truth to all that. Alex. Quote: Originally posted by Diana Darn! You mean like the Rider Waite? :D (Dagobert! Come over here and read this last post!)

Diana	25 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Alex We may be kidding but there's some truth to all that. You know what? Speaking for myself here (obviously), I have not made one post on this thread where I was kidding. More serious would be hard to find. Thanks for the links (and all your posts in this thread).

Alex	25 May 2003
Actually, just by taking a look, I have noticed some interesting similarities between the imagery of the R-W deck and the ancient deck Sola-Busca, which as far as I know, is the oldest "tarot" deck known. The Troth also has some elements of that deck (S-B). Therefore we must conclude the designers of these decks have tried in a way to approach the most ancient decks, and they didn't see the Marseilles family as the ideal starting point/inspiration? Alex. Quote: Originally posted by Diana Darn! You mean like the Rider Waite? :D (Dagobert! Come over here and read this last post!)

jmd	26 May 2003
There is no doubt that the Sola-Busca, plates of which were on exhibition in London around the time of the creation of the RWCS deck, were influential in its minor arcana (only) design... as for the Sola-Busca's 'Majors', however, the only relation they bear to Tarot is that there are 22. In my view, then, the Sola-Busca, though highly interesting, is not a Tarot - though it may have been used for the game version. With regards to the Major Arcana, the main influence upon the RWCS, with regards to imagery, appears to have been a combination of the Marseilles, some images and comments made by Eliphas Levi (eg, the Chariot and the Wheel of Fortune), and the Golden Dawn. Other influences, such as Flemish decks (which tend to have a rider and horse upon the Sun card), and the Bible (eg, the Rose of Sharon and the White Rider of Death), and Freemasonry, are also evident... With this syncretic influx, of course the deck is very interesting - in the many ways in which it deviates from 'tradition'. It should also be remembered that the main 'tradition' at the time on the continent was that other divergent deck: the Etteilla. Even though it is not my favourite, the Marteau rendition of the Marseilles (published by Grimaud, of which Marteau is a relative) and his book dating from the 1930s have provided for the foundation of more serious availability of Tarot tradition - in my view at least. The history section could well do with investigating further the Sola-Busca and its role in the Waite/Colman-Smith deck, for those who are interested ;)

catboxer	26 May 2003
With regard to the Sola-Busca being the oldest known tarot deck, it's probably not. That honor would have to go to the Cary-Yale (another non-standard pack, but closer to the standard than Sola-Busca) of about 1441. But the Sola-Busca is indeed very, very old, and it might be the oldest printed tarot-like deck of cards. "Late fifteenth century" (Kaplan) is the closest anyone can come to pinning down its age. It's unique, also, in that it was engraved and printed from metal plates, rather than being printed from woodblocks. And it's extremely elegantly done, very much unlike the crude, ugly, and cheap Italian woodblock tarots of the same period. This was a luxury product, produced for the rich and noble classes. I'm indebted to my friend jmd for the information that the Sola-Busca was on exhibit in London at the time P.C. Smith was working on her cards. Some of the Sola-Busca minors that she incorporated into the Rider-Waite-Smith are the ten swords, three swords, and nine batons. The original full deck of colored cards was subsequently photographed by the British art historian A.M. Hind, and included in his book, "Early Italian Engravings." A few years afterward, the cards and the Sola-Busca family, to whom they belonged, dropped out of sight and haven't been found again. There are a few uncolored images struck from the original plates in various European museums, but no full deck is now known. Hinds's pictures are our only source of information about these cards. The Sola-Busca is not a tarot, but it was inspired by tarot. Its majors -- all pictures of warriors (except the Matto) -- are sometimes bloody and gruesome. A person would have to read an awful lot into these cards to find any esoteric content here. They seem, rather, to be an elaborate artistic conceit. It's the only set of cards I know of prior to Coleman Smith's with anecdotally illustrated suited cards. The more I study the cards of the early Italian period, the more they remind me of what's happening in tarot today. With its Sola-Busca, Minchiate, and Mantegna variations, the fifteenth century in Italy was a time and place of open-ended experimentation and variation. People felt free to use both tarot cards and regular playing cards as vehicles for very personal forms of self-expression, and for a wide variety of interpretations and formats for presenting the cards' more esoteric content. It seems to have been only later, in France, that the tarot images became codified and standardized.

felicityk	26 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by catboxer [the sola-busca is] the only set of cards I know of prior to Coleman Smith's with anecdotally illustrated suited cards. If I understand what you mean by "anecdotally illustrated", then I think that the Naibi di Giovanni Vacchetta from 1893 also fits the bill. It was reproduced by Lo Scarabeo as Tarot of the Master: http://www.themysticeye.com/pics/master.htm There is also an earlier reproduction by Il Meneghello: http://www.themysticeye.com/pics/vacchetta.htm I may have pointed out this deck earlier in the thread; if so, I apologize for the repetition. Felicity

Alex	26 May 2003
If the Sola-Busca and/or Cary-Yale are the oldest engraved/carved decks known, wouldn't it be more parisimonious to think that they have played a role in the creation of the Tarot? I mean to say, wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that the Tarot has evolved/been inspired by one of these two decks, or even by both? Or it has been said somewhere else that the Tarot arose independently from these? Additionally, is there any evidence that the Tarot is older than both decks, and what kind of evidence is that? Thanks for answering Alex_The-Ignorant Quote: The Sola-Busca is not a tarot, but it was inspired by tarot

catboxer	26 May 2003
Alex: The Cary-Yale, or Visconti di Modrone Deck as it is sometimes known, wasn't printed from engravings or carved woodblocks. It was hand-painted, and like the other Visconti Decks, is one of a kind. Here's the sequence of events as reconstructed by some of the most respected experts in this field (I've posted some of this elsewhere, but it bears repeating). In a very concise 15-page introduction to his "The Visconti-Sforza Tarot Cards," (1986) Michael Dummett effectively argues as follows: *The Cary-Yale deck (Visconti de Modrone) was the tarot prototype, produced in 1441 on the occasion of the marriage of Francesco Sforza to Bianca Maria Visconti, as originally proposed by Stuart Kaplan. This set seems to have been an experimental model, and would originally have consisted of (probably) 86 cards (six courts, three male and three female for each suit). It also exhibits artistic inconsistencies which hint at the work of several hands. Three of the surviving trumps are Faith, Hope, and Charity -- not found in the usual trump order, which throws doubt upon the number of trumps the deck may have contained. It also lends weight to the theory that this pack was produced before the eventual formula followed by tarot decks ever since came into existence. The Devil and the Tower are missing from this deck also, but so are a lot of other cards. Only 67 have survived. *The Brambilla pack, of which only four cards survive, was painted between 1442 and 1445, by the same artist who produced the Visconti-Sforza. This deck had the standard composition of ten pip and four court cards per suit. The artist is long assumed to have been Bembo, but Dummett, citing recent work by Giuliana Algeri, is now leaning toward Francesco Zavattari. *The Visconti-Sforza deck was painted about 1450. It may be missing the Devil and the Tower because a) they may never have been included, or b) they may have been discarded by the patrons, who didn't like them, or c) they were lost. *The Sola-Busca Deck, printed from engravings and then hand colored, and crude decks printed from woodblocks, which may have been hand colored or stencil colored, came slightly later. The only highly regarded expert who thinks the woodblock version -- what we might call the working class or poor people's decks -- might have come first, is Robert O'Neil. It's worth noting that Italian woodblock tarots contain both the Devil and the Tower, leading to the conclusion that both were part of the standard trump sequence from the earliest days (see Kaplan, Vols. I and II).

Cerulean	26 May 2003
Hello Catboxer and those who have the Sola Busca deck, That wonderful online site that has the 19th century reproduction of the original 15th century cards is the only resource that I have now for the Sola Busca cards. I'm thinking you are using these 19th century cards or the book? Do you have the Sola Busca book with the Giordano Berti introduction? Or are you working from other sources as well? If you all want some starting points for the Ferarra end and some early mentions of trumps and playing cards, here's a partial web page some people are working on: http://trionfi.com/ People are still tracking down how valid the sources are, including the resources we mentioned here. The Ortalli review mentioned, if you follow the links to autorbis' site, might be of interest to those looking at cards prior to the 1440s, starting from Niccolo/Parisina D'Este's time I do want to let people know this is a myriad of study points that people are still working on. Best, Mari H.

felicityk	26 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by catboxer It's worth noting that Italian woodblock tarots contain both the Devil and the Tower, leading to the conclusion that both were part of the standard trump sequence from the earliest days (see Kaplan, Vols. I and II). What are the earliest known Italian woodblock decks? Are there any in existence that predate the earliest French ones (e.g. Catelin Geoffrey, Tarot de Paris)? http://it.geocities.com/a_pollett/cards59.htm Felicity

catboxer	26 May 2003
Felicity: Yes, and they're dreadful, ugly things, too. But they do tend to vindicate the theory, questioned by many (as noted in the sources provided by Mari), that the 78-card tarot became a standard pattern in at least parts of Italy before 1500. Some of these cards are in the Met in New York City and others are in the Budapest Museum of Fine Arts. All are on uncut, uncolored sheets. You can see them, and read some information about them, in the second volume of Kaplan's "Encyclopedia," pages 271-277. The same volume also has the story of a very interesting card found at Sforza Castle in about 1900. It's the earliest known specimen of a Marseilles-style card, and fortunately it's the two coins -- fortunate because that's the card that traditionally bears the name of the maker and the year of manufacture. In this case, it's Paulinus Casteleto: 1499. So that sets the date of the origin of an Ur-Marseilles way back to almost the earliest days (page 289). Here's a Moon card from one of the uncut sheets of very early Italian woodblock tarots.

jmd	30 May 2003
What a wonderful thread... Part of the question which remains unanswered is whether the two of Coins card found in the well of the Sforza castel about a century ago was from a Tarot deck, or from a Mamluk-type naipes (and if thus, then without Major Arcana). Of course, it has all the hallmarks as being from a Tarot - but unless further, even circumstantial, evidence is found, all we can claim is that here is a card, in all ways similar as those found in Marseilles type Tarot, dating from the fifteenth century and found in northern Italy...

The How much has the Tarot changed since it's 'birth?' thread was originally posted on 18 May 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.