Switching of Strength and Justice

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 20 Aug 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Rusty Neon	20 Aug 2003
I'm curious why the Order of the Golden Dawn's switching of Strength (VIII/XI) and Justice (VIII/XI) is a cause for concern for tarotists over the years? In this regard, I observe, for example, that the Vieville deck, which predates the Conver Tarot de Marseille, has a number of trump numbering differences from the Conver, e.g., Justice as VII and Force as IX.

matfav	20 Aug 2003
it had to do with the 22 major cards placement on the kabala and the 22 paths of the tree of life.

MeeWah	20 Aug 2003
Rusty Neon: The apparent concern over the numbering seems to lie in the numbers themselves, especially if the perception of each trump is based in part on the number. It would seem logical to perceive numerology has an integral part in what each trump represents; also to express the particular understanding of the designer of a deck. Interesting the Vieville has such a marked difference in the number representation. There seems to be a difference also in whether the Roman numerals or the conventional numbers are employed but I am not knowledgeable about the actual difference. .

Jaykob	20 Aug 2003
being a novice in studying Tarot this has puzzled me as well, especially because my sould and personality cards happen to be VIII...Strength or Justice...which is it? I guess that's part of the puzzle for me.

Diana	20 Aug 2003
8 is the number of Justice. And Cosmic Balance. Ever since Pythagorean times. And probably before that as well. Now, why Jacques Vieville did not know this, is a puzzle indeed. Perhaps he missed out on something.....

Macavity	20 Aug 2003
Perhaps in the years prior to (relatively) modern divination procatice (based on numerology?) the EXACT numbers were of less importance? In looking at some (non-Tarot) historical decks, things seem to slip (globally) back and forth number-wise but often retain (broadly) the same "Tarot" ordering? So, I sense the ordering of the cards was held in some significance... relative to one another. There are also certain "markers" that seem to stick with certain numbers? IMO, for Tarot, Justice just seems to fit "better" as the first card in some "second row" of the Majors... and following the chariot etc. But, if I look at this astrologically, and read from my Thoth-alikes, then YES, I prefer the standard(?) Zodiac order: "the ram, the bull, the heavenly twins..." etc. Perhaps just me? :) It's was interesting (to me) to note that my previous reference to the "angel-card" sequence (counting back in fours from Judgement!) is "invariant" under the 8:11 swap. Perhaps those Golden Dawn types had more knowledge and respect for the "tradition" than sometimes credited to them? }) Macavity

Minderwiz	20 Aug 2003
One reason for the transposition appears to be the astrological links to the Tarot. Strength was linked by the Golden Dawn to Leo and Justice to Libra. In sequence Leo comes before Libra so the two cards were transposed - however Waite hints at possible other meanings in his very limited explanation of the change. Diana makes a good point about the Numerological link of Justice to 8, however a quick flick through a number of Numerologists shows that a modern link is of 8 to power and material satisfaction, with 6 being linked to harmony and balance. I suppose one conclusion from this is that the meaning of numbers, like the meaning of most divinatory symbols is not objective or fixed for ever - Waite and others around the turn of the twentieth century seem to have altered their numerological associations as well as introducing astrological connections into Tarot.

jmd	20 Aug 2003
The Vieville deck sequence is one of those quite interesting variation which occurs with some decks. It seems to be drawing on a more Flemish tradition, though even the numbering of Strength is ambiguous (in the deck, the Hermit is numbered XI and Strength IX), for the Hanged Man is clearly 12, expressed IIX. In the additive form which was used at the time (eg, Temperance is, even on this deck, XIIII), both Strength and the Hermit may have been read as eleven (one and ten). In my opinion, this is one of those decks which has survived which seems to possibly have been made with much 'missing' material, with the artist somehow making do, or drawing on oral tradition more strongly than visual one. The Moon, the Sun, the Devil, Temperance, and the Tower have depictions quite different from traditional decks (in their imagery more so than their numbering). It could, of course, be argued that this deck forms part of the pre-stabilisation of the imagery of Tarot as we know it, and which only emerged later (Vieville's deck appears to be from the (very) circa 1650s). With regards to the Golden Dawn's and Waite's switch between Justice and Strength, I think it is reasonably clear that this was made due to particular associations they wished to make with the Hebrew letters, and astrological considerations arising out of these... Personally, I think it was a case of 'discovering' a connection which wasn't there in the way thought. (written in a rush... hope I am making sense :))

Minderwiz	21 Aug 2003
jmd, If I understand your last point correctly, then I agree with you. Whilst I am willing to accept analogies between Tarot and Astrology, I'm not convinced by 'correspondences' (which are much stronger). In the case of Leo and Libra their sequence is determined by the underlying cycles of Mode (Cardinal, Fixed, Mutable) and Element (Fire, Earth, Air, Water), starting from the Spring Equinox. As far as I'm aware there are no corresponding cycles in Tarot. Even from an Astrological point of view the Zodiac, being a circle, has no clear starting point - and at least four solar events are possible starts - the Cardinal points. If we began the sequence from the Autumn Equinox then Libra would precede Leo.

jmd	21 Aug 2003
The major sticking point is not, I think, the order in which Leo and Libra are considered, but the connection to the Major Arcana cards: though it may seem reasonable to connect Libra and Justice, the two are quite independent of one another - only the scales 'connects' them. The connection between Strength and Leo is even more tenuous - though certainly accepted as given by many. If (and it is a big 'if') one makes those astrological considerations, then the switch is somewhat justifiable - but then, it is not Tarot being considered, but Tarot as a reflection of astrology. What is gained in one aspect is also what may be lost. When one considers the various ways in which people have made Tarot connections with astrology, I always find it illuminating to consider various possibilities. For example, decks which depict Aries as connected to the Pope/Hierophant have certainly also altered the image to reflect the view... again a modification of the Tarot. The points in the first post, however, of course stand as strong considerations: numerous decks, not just recent ones, have variations in their numbering. One of the questions which we need to ask ourselves is the basis on which these orderings were or are made. There may be an element of arbitrariness, but I personally do not think so with regards to the major traditions. Understanding that the GD and Waite did alter the ordering from the then accepted tradition only adds to our understanding. Accepting or rejecting their reason, after careful consideration, helps us in developing discernment.

Minderwiz	21 Aug 2003
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with that. There may well be analogies between Strength and Leo and b etween Libra and Justice but analogy is not the same as equivalent or even quite similar - it is showing that there are some similarities and in certain instances those similarities might be helpful. However to claim close correspondence is highly misleading. Indeed as jmd suggests it would grossly detract from Tarot, which would become a shadow form of Astrology, or indeed it could detract from Astrology which would become a pale form of Tarot. Both are divinatory systems in their own right and I think Waite and others who have stressed such links have done Tarot a disservice.

Diana	21 Aug 2003
Minderwiz: Can I hug you?

Jaykob	21 Aug 2003
I'm not an expert on Tarot by any means but I do have something to add here. Even assuming that Waite and others were wrong about the re-ordering, I do not think that they did Tarot a disservice. Waite had a hypothesis, and because Tarot is a tool based highly on ones own subjective opinions and beliefs anyway, he included his own spin in HIS deck. His deck is also the most popular in the world from what I understand so, I would guess, people are making intuitive connections with it and the ordering. How can one say he did Tarot a disservice when it's blatantly obvious that he and his deck have done more to spread Tarot around then anyone else? By the way, after reading the comments in this thread I have significant doubts in the re-ordering myself. The switch never seemed right TO ME, and I think I'll probably begin thinking of Justice in the eighth position after some more reflection. My only gripe is the assumption that by re-ordering the cards Mr. Waite or the GD is guilty of an offense against Tarot or Astrology. I think instead we should look at his work and take it for what it is, and let it open our minds to the possibility of change within the deck while acknowledging their different perspectives. that is all.

Minderwiz	21 Aug 2003
Diana, Yes of course you can - I'm on the first plane to Switzerland. Jaykob, I use the RWS deck as my main deck (until I can get Diana to send me a trial version of the Marseilles). I'm sure that Waite did not intend to do a disservice to Tarot, and I agree with you that his deck has done more to popularise Tarot in the last century than any other. I certainly would not use the words 'offence' or 'guilty' - which suggests some form of deliberate sabotage or act of vandalism. However, I do feel that Tarot and Astrology are different and that the Tarot stands by itself (rather magnificently) and does not need to have, nor really benefits from Astrological correspondences. To the extent that Waite and the GD (and others) have stressed Astrological correspondences, I think they have created an unwarranted impression that Tarot is in a real way underpinned by Astrology. That impression, whether they meant it to or not, does a 'disservice' because meaning is then sought through reference to another divinatory system, rather than the Tarot itself.

catti	21 Aug 2003
i learned tarot on rws based decks and because of that strength 8 and justice 11 seem "right" justice and the High priestess strength and the star make good pairs for me I am not suggestign that the cards are interchangeable but this thread had me thinking about the similarities that the cards strength and justice share: female archetypes in major arcana "human quality" type card Balance: strength is the balance of animal vs spiritual justice is balancing the information for a fair outcome control: strength is control with subtle force over brute force justice is control of the law ( human or universal)

Jaykob	21 Aug 2003
I think it's important to remember that Tarot began as a game, and the importance of Tarot goes only as far as the individual seeking answers gives it. For some people, including Waite, Tarot may not be a stand alone tool and needs astrological influence to be significant. I see no problem with this, even though I disagree whole heartedly. Tarot is not a science, it is absolutely based on subjective opinion. There are no right answers, there are no wrong answers. You cannot prove that one card means something and another card means something else in a divinatory sense. I believe this is why many people who teach meditation using Tarot usually stress that our first impressions of the cards are just as valid as our impressions after studying them and their origins. Tarot may not be a potent or even relavent tool for some people without combining it with astrology. You can't disprove this. You may love the tarot, and love it so much that the thought of needing some kind of added influence such as astrology is offensive. But remember, you yourself decided the nature of the cards, and what you decided is not the universal truth of Tarot. For others, Tarot may be nothing without astrology's influence. They may find no truth in Tarot without it. This isn't unfortunate. This is a reflection of people's differences.

Minderwiz	21 Aug 2003
Jaykob, I don't disagree with anything you say here - Tarot is subjective - the interaction of person with cards is a highly personal relationship. Of course I cannot prove that using Astrological 'correspondences' is wrong in any objective sense - nor have I claimed it to be. Neither have I claimed any knowledge of a 'Universal Truth of Tarot' - there is none. All that I can do is to ask a proponent of Astrological Correspondences why they don't just use Astrology instead? - if they have a clear answer to this, then I have to accept that for them their system works. For me, it may not be 'wrong 'but it is not good practice because it shifts interpretation away from the cards - it lacks elegance and it lacks simplicity- two characteristics of a good system. And it is on that point that my argument lies. Also I have explicitly assumed, as you do implicitly, that a conscious decision has taken place - a person has decided that for them Tarot needs the support of Astrology (or the Qabbala or other system( to be meaningful. However this is not always the case, a person may accept the link because the 'booklet' that comes with the cards tells them it is so. Take for example a newcomers who, tries a Thoth deck and finds that say for the five of Cups they are told to interpret it as Mars in Scorpio, I rather fear that they will unwittingly assume that Tarot and Astrology are inextricably linked. They will also presumably seek out Astrology books to find out what 'Mars in Scorpio' means. They will become further confused when they find that Astrologers do not equate Mars in Scorpio with 'Disappointment'. Their interpretation has now left the cards and is somewhere in deepest Astrology. They may even decided that they might as well stay there and use Astrology instead. They are not well served with such a description of the meaning of the cards and may struggle to get anything meaningful from Tarot. If they are told to focus on what meaning the card suggests to them, then they are likely to have a more positive experience (whatever their interpretation of the card) and one which stands on the cards alone. This fully allows for individual differences. Whilst it may not be wrong, it is unfortunate if someone takes for granted the Astrological link, without thinking it through, and is denied the opportunity of reflecting on the cards alone. They may well (inadvertently) have closed a door to their own inner development. Hopefully the closure is only temporary. Just a quick final statement. I am an Astrologer, rather than a Tarot(ist?) so nothing that involves Astrology would ever upset me in anyway.

MystiqueMoonlight	21 Aug 2003
Did Thoth not play a "game" with the Moon to gain more hours in the day? Was that "game" not cards? :smoker:

dadsnook2000	22 Aug 2003
I may have a wacked-out view of this so feel free to throw a brick or two -- BUT -- I'm not sure that I really care in terms of using my decks for general readings. I'm not likely to change my views of how to use either Strength or Justice in a spread just because the assigned number changes. I've seen several numerical views on number meanings, I've been unconvinced that there is a close correspondance between our 78 tarot cards and a corresponding number of astrological attributes. Yes, there are some common meanings between some numbers in some systems but there are also discrepancies. There are several or more astrological systems of meanings ascribed to tarot cards -- and I haven't seen a strong argument about anyone system even though there seems to be obvious tie-ins between some cards and astrology symbols. So, I'll just keep shuffeling my cards and using them as they come up in a spread without benefit of numbers or planets. Dave.

Minderwiz	23 Aug 2003
Dave, Yes, I must admit that I don't really pay much attention to the numbers of the MA when I do a reading - so if you have a wacked out view then I must admit I share it - so I'll stand by you while the bricks are thrown LOL. I suppose I see the issue of changing the numbering system as interesting and also the Numerology behind it but for practical purposes I don't really make that much use of it at all. Totally agree with the rest of your comments.

MystiqueMoonlight	23 Aug 2003
I suppose from an Astrological and/or Esoteric Qabalistic view point the ordering of the Trumps is a relevant issue (I dare say these things are even relevant to those who might not yet even comprehend them).

jmd	23 Aug 2003
There is much implied by Mystique Moonlight that I personally agree with. Of course, it is also perfectly reasonable to also state that many just do not really care about the numbering, or whether there should even be numbering (I remember discussing this also with AmounRa with regards to his deck). Like dadsnook2000, I may very well not pay attention in the least to the numeral on a card when I do a particular reading, and with Jaykob, I also tend to agree that Waite also made wonderful contributions to not only Tarot, but also Freemasonry, Kabalah and Alchemy. His careful output of materials in various areas is not only large, but on the whole careful and reflective. He has, of course, been also shown to have made errors in each of these other areas, and, in my personal view, also Tarot. Nonetheless, he carefully looked at a number of other decks and strived to work with Colman-Smith towards a deck which he considered captured not only the essential elements of Tarot impulse, but also integrated in various ways areas he had a deep respect for, interest in, and valued importance towards. The deck they created reflects this deeply - as does Crowley-Harris's Thoth deck. It is in the attempt to integrate these various streams which impacted on certain aspects I personally would have preferred they did not alter - and this includes the transposition of the Justice and Strength cards. Even if I do not look at the number of the card, one develops an understanding of the cards as correlations are suggested by others, or images are altered to reflect the view. How many of us now see not a lion, but a large carnivorous quadruped, with the ambiguity of possibly either canine or feline, when thinking of the Strength card? How many of us can easily, not just by word, place the Fool anywhere because un-numbered, rather than numbered zero? These are some of the impact which plays beyond the obvious conscious reflections one may make. Further, does Justice lead on towards the Hermit after having passed the Chariot, or the Hanged Man after the effects of the Wheel of Fortune? Numeral allocation does, I propose, play far more in one's developing understanding of Tarot than we may at times care to consider (myself included, by the way). Whether the early Tarot developed in a game or not is about its early usage. Its images would have, then as now, also pointed to other important esoteric influence - whether understood by its players or not. These are some of the considerations we also need to make, and permit the unveiling of the veiled allegories and illustrated symbols to arise with the might of the developed imaginative faculty (of which Goethe spoke powerfully). If one considers that astrological, Kabalistic and other esoteric considerations are important (and I personally do), then the question which could also be asked is whether Waite and Crowley (amongst others) may have altered the tradition due to either an insight into how these may correlate, or, also possibly, only partial insights with its consequence of misguidedness as to the proper relation between these various fields.

Scarletpeaches	25 Aug 2003
To throw something else into the mix: Mythic Tarot has the Empress and Emperor preceding the High Priestess, whereas in every other deck I have owned the High Priestess appears first. What's going on? Has the world gone mad?

Nevada	25 Aug 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Scarletpeaches To throw something else into the mix: Mythic Tarot has the Empress and Emperor preceding the High Priestess, whereas in every other deck I have owned the High Priestess appears first. What's going on? Has the world gone mad? Oh for gosh sakes! Yes, apparently it has. When I see an astrological correspondence on a card, such as in the Thoth deck, I think of it as a way of defining the character of the card. Since I do study astrology separately from Tarot, I can take that into consideration when interpreting the card. However, I don't purposely choose to combine Tarot and astrology, and I would think that it shouldn't be of concern to readers who don't know astrology. You can simply interpret the card as you see it. But it is confusing to see the order of the cards change everytime a new deck comes out. There often doesn't seem to be an explanation or good reason for it beyond the designer's desire for their deck to be unique. Why? Why? Why? (Goes away muttering.) Nevada

MeeWah	26 Aug 2003
The numbering of those cards is what has detracted from my use of the Mythic more. When I did, I had to ignore the differences. Very hard when one is accustomed to seeing certain cards in a particular order & to associate them in pairs. Also to rely on the numbers even if not exclusively. Am more acquainted with numbers than with Tarot, actually.

dadsnook2000	26 Aug 2003
Another slanted opinion: Many of us make an earnest effort at one point or another of learning a little about numerology relative to better understanding the tarot. It is only after one spends a lot of time with tarot, astrology and other related topical areas that you realize that there is a significant body of conflicting ideas springing forth from those who have devoted a lifetime of study to these topics. What is a "lightweight" to do? Applying my many years of astrological work to a more recent interest in tarot, I realize that sometimes you just have to go with what works for you and throw out the stuff that doesn't work -- no matter who says it should work. The tarot cards are loose, they can be dealt into any spread and show up in any position. To a large degree it is the spread position that impacts the card's interpretation. Yes, I realize that you can split the Majors up into groups and that some cards have higher-lower affinities to others. I just feel that a suspect numbering scheme shouldn't prevent me from using the cards and my intuition. And, again, I just can't put a link between most cards and specific astrological symbology. Dave.

MeeWah	26 Aug 2003
Dave: Ye make a very good point. Everyone has his unique points of reference, & has to decide what works best intuitively & leave aside the rest or remain compromised in the efforts. I came to Tarot in a roundabout way. Via numerology to playing cards to an oracle deck to Tarot. It was easy to apply numerology to the playing cards because those are not illustrated with images (other than with pip marks) & the court cards of Kings & Queens. I think the experience with playing cards enhanced the understanding of numbers. With the oracle deck I used a combination of a limited astrology & again, numerology. In Tarot, I discovered that the images can be the most compelling & influential in the interpretive process. One can achieve far more if willing to be flexible; to "think" outside of any established boxes. I have found conflicting astrological assocations with Tarot depending on the deck--so unless I get a definite astrological connection with a card, I do not look for such.

Teheuti	27 Aug 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Minderwiz There may well be analogies between Strength and Leo and b etween Libra and Justice but analogy is not the same as equivalent or even quite similar . . . Both are divinatory systems in their own right and I think Waite and others who have stressed such links have done Tarot a disservice. First - I agree that astrological signs and planets are not the equivalent of Tarot cards or vice-versa. However, one can "inform" the other for those people who use astrology as a central classification or ordering system for life's experiences. This is a standard process that underlies the Western magical, hermetic, alchemical and Qabalistic traditions. Those who have stressed such links tend to operate within this tradition. The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn compiled one of the most complete and internally consistent sets of correspondences - not that it is perfect and not that everyone agrees with the way they did it. Waite did not originate the Strength/Justice switch. Kenneth Mackenzie, who wrote the cipher manuscript on which the Golden Dawn was based, did. Along with placing the Fool at the beginning (also an innovation by Mckenzie) it clears up the major inconsistency among the images, the order of the signs of the zodiac, and the traditional zodiacal associations to the Hebrew letters. If you use Justice as 8 because it is "more traditional" then you should also place the Fool last or next to last (before the World) - and consider him as the "final jepoardy" card - the "punishment" if you fail to achieve the World when judged in Judgment. There is one 15th century Tarot deck in which both Justice and Strength are numbered VIII, although I don't remember which it is and, in the earliest numbering of the cards, Temperance is 6, Strength is 9, and Justice is 20. In many of the early decks the three classical virtues are placed next to each other. The French system (Justice as 8) is only one variation among many. T

jmd	27 Aug 2003
Welcome to Aeclectic, Teheuti... Waite certainly was not the first person who swapped the order of Justice and Strength, but rather followed the altered ordering as suggested by the Golden Dawn. His deck, however, as depicted by Colman-Smith, was the first commercially available deck which followed this Golden Dawn swap due to attributions they saw as 'rectifying' was they considered (erroneously in my view) inconsistency in the Marseille ordering of the deck. The Marseille pattern contains no such inconsistency. Certainly numerous very early decks had variations in their ordering - though some consistency is also there. Many of these some of us have also discussed or mentioned in some of the threads in the Historical Forum of this site - and your, and everyone's, input there is highly welcome. As mentioned, the positioning of the Fool as penultimate is not only consistent with views employed in the Kabalistic Order of the Rose Cross (a Continental European Order formed at the same time as the GD), but consistent with the information McKenzie had been given by Levi in 1861. Each of the orderings have consistencies, but the Golden Dawn's does alter intrinsic merits the Marseille pattern provides, and that through assumed correlations by the GD. There isn't, it should be noted, one Western Magical-Kabalistic-Hermetic-Alchemical traditional view on the matter, but rather a tradition which seeks to view the world in somewhat similar terms with, at times, lenses scratched of shaded somewhat differently. Part of the learning, I would suggest, is for each of us to also understand how these lenses have been shaded, and what the Tarot reveals of itself when the lenses are as clear as can be. Here, the most plausible Kabalistic correlations which I have yet come across arise not from seeing how they can be made to fit preconceived notions, but through looking carefully at sequences as earlier given. The work of Mark Filipas here suggests that the possibility of an Hebrew abecedarium in the Marseilles sequence is likely. Alef with the Magician, Shin with the World, and Tav with the Fool... With, of course, Justice as the eighth letter-number, and Strength as the eleventh (with therefore a 'value' of 20). Multiple 'traditions' may emerge, or, more likely, the four main current views will recognise their differences and slowly build to a common understanding. Of course, we may at this stage differ as to what this may be. Three of the four, however, already number Justice eight and Strength eleven... the GD's wonderful 100 year historical descendents and derivatives may, as other traditions have, need to take stock.

Teheuti	28 Aug 2003
jmd, Thanks for your response. I believe the issue was more about whether astrology should be related to tarot at all. To follow your argument: You say the Marseille pattern contains no inconsistency with it's own ordering - of course it doesn't. But it is inconsistent with earlier numbered decks - establishing a new order which became the dominant one only for about 300-400 years. Still, this is not the point. I'm confused about "the information Mckenzie had been given by Levi in 1861." I am aware they met and have read the account, but what specifically is the Tarot information that Levi gave Mckenzie? I've never seen it. I agree that there is not one system. Isn't it up to each individual (based on their interests, needs, or happenstance) to find the system that works best for them? My point was that many people (especially Western magicians) have found it rewarding to work with a set of correspondences between astrology and a lot of other fields (like botany) - and that there is a long tradition of doing so. Not everyone uses the same correspondences. Aren't wars are fought over who has the "clearest lens" or the most perfect truth? What difference does it make as long as a person can use their system to work with the Tarot in a satisfying (to them and their questioners) manner? Those who don't like a system should not use it. If someone thinks astrology and tarot should be kept separate then that's what they should do - fortunately that won't stop others from combining them in any way they choose. Respectfully, T

anjocoxo	29 Aug 2003
I don't know if this has anyhting to do with this subject, but I have done my own astrological correspondence with the Tarot cards... Just to give you one example, I always see the Magician as Aries, because he has will power, he goes forward, he may even be a bit arrongant sometimes. To me, the Emperor is Taurus: organized, controled. So, I do my own associations, because the associations made before (mainly by Waite) sometimes just don't feel right to me (and to me, intuition is like, 80% of a reading). Perhaps astrology and tarot should not mingle... they are distinctive things. These are my 2 cents Anjo

jmd	31 Aug 2003
With both anjocoxo and Teheuti's comments I very much agree: it is in many ways 'up to each individual (based on their interests, needs, or happenstance) to find the system that works best for them' - and this in conjunction, I would also personally encourage, in light of what others have investigated, found and postulated. My comment of the clarity of the lenses through which to view was not to suggest that 'mine' are clearer. Rather, it was to suggest that each of the lenses of the various existing traditions are already tinted - and to recognise the tint may assist in also being able to see without such colouring. I mentioned the work of Mark Filipas because he has, in my view, tried to just look at some of the earlier decks and allowed a new discovery to emerge... whether it proves correct in the long term is not as important as that his investigations have permitted new insights to arise. Here is where the various esoteric orders which use Tarot have, I would suggest, to take note, for to take at face-value what some of the earlier quite erudite and worthy presiding officers may have suggested may be, as intrinsic correlations, more restrictive than other correlations. I wonder what Mathers, for example, would have made of Filipas's 'discovery' had this been published prior to 1888. With regards to McKenzie, I do not have handy reference, but it may have been in some of Gilbert's (published) research, which, if I recall, documents the former stating that he had been shown by E. Levi his notebook's Hebrew letter/Major Arcana correlations. It is only a small step, given their interests, to make the astrological ones, as these are in the Sefer Yetzirah. With regards to the Marseilles ordering, it is certainly the case, as I have acknowledged, that some of the early decks were totally un-numbered (eg, the Visconti/Sforza family of decks), and that variations does occur amongst some early decks. Questions which we need to ask - and answer for ourselves as we study these - are: whether there is a patterned ordering which better fits the cards; how the existing ordering s make sense (without assuming any 'blind'); and whether correlations are imposed, or integration is taking place (for myself, if the former, I tend to dismiss it somewhat easily, if the latter, I tend to study it with more effort - and I personally have no doubt that the GD, as for the Continental 'tradition', sought not just to correlate, but integrate). As Teheuti says, those who do not like a system should not use it... and of course I do not think that any who do not like a system would use it. Further, however, I would also state - and part of the reason for some of my posts - that those who seek to promulgate a system have a responsibility to ensure that it is properly explained. Many books state the GD variant and its attendant correlations as though they were 'gospel'. And this from authors I also highly respect. Beginners, and each of us, for that matter, have to take what is given with an element of proper trust, respect, and reverence. Let each order ensure that the trust placed in its teachings is warranted. To call one's ordering 'rectified' assumes another's - at times named - was corrupted. To write or say that another deck 'purposefully' altered the sequence as a 'blind' is to claim that the 'true' pattern is now being restored... these are, unfortunately, claimed in some of the literature (and other places) to justify the GD & Waite/Colman-Smith ordering of Justice and Strength. With MeeWah, I agree that 'one can achieve far more if willing to be flexible'...

Rusty Neon	25 Jul 2004
Quote: Originally posted by jmd The Vieville deck sequence is one of those quite interesting variation which occurs with some decks. It seems to be drawing on a more Flemish tradition, though even the numbering of Strength is ambiguous (in the deck, the Hermit is numbered XI and Strength IX), for the Hanged Man is clearly 12, expressed IIX. In the additive form which was used at the time (eg, Temperance is, even on this deck, XIIII), both Strength and the Hermit may have been read as eleven (one and ten). In my opinion, this is one of those decks which has survived which seems to possibly have been made with much 'missing' material, with the artist somehow making do, or drawing on oral tradition more strongly than visual one. The Moon, the Sun, the Devil, Temperance, and the Tower have depictions quite different from traditional decks (in their imagery more so than their numbering). It could, of course, be argued that this deck forms part of the pre-stabilisation of the imagery of Tarot as we know it, and which only emerged later (Vieville's deck appears to be from the (very) circa 1650s). It's worth nothing, though, that in the Viéville, Justice is numbered VII, which can't be read as VIII even if VII is reversed. The Viéville's trump number is set out in the following deck review: http://www.tarotpassages.com/vieville.htm

The Switching of Strength and Justice thread was originally posted on 20 Aug 2003 in the Talking Tarot board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Talking Tarot, or read more archived threads.