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 count