Tradition... Ah! Tradition!

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 22 Dec 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

jmd	22 Dec 2003
In Sadness about the Tarot World, Kiama laments certain aspects which seem to prejudice either certain decks or, more importantly, reflect prejudices people have against other people. In an earlier thread in Tarot Decks (in the 1jj Swiss Deck thread), discussion also emerged which reflected various views held by some of us. There are a number of issues in the Tarot world with which strong views are held. Some relates to how one uses them, another as to how they may be related or not to other esoteric traditions or systems, yet another relates to its early history... and another still to its specific iconography. It is this last which also impacts on how one determines whether a deck (irrespective as to its beauty) is or is not Tarot. In the thread (linked above) on the Swiss 1jj, Kiama brought up an important comment about reading. She mentions, in favour of scenically depicted pips (RWCS and others), that: ' [her] mind works on symbolism, blatant symbolism at that, which I can interpret one way for one reading, and another way for a totally different reading, depending on the querent, their questions, etc [...] ' A different view to this is wonderfully presented in one of Umbrae's recent posts (Surfing the Waves...), depicting various ways of reading. But I suppose I had better explain how I personally see this as a different view. I have no doubt that scenes, whether from Tarot-like images or other, may ease the ways in which a person may permit themself to open up to ever-so-detailed aspects which allows for a reading to unfold. When one trusts sufficiently, those same images or words may come without even a card in front of one. That belongs to the manteaic arts. With the Tarot, however, is that what it is all about? Is the reading of it such that is gains precedence over its other aspects? If the answer is in the affirmative, then of course, one is quite at liberty to alter images at whim - or indeed add images wherever one decides or desires. I do sense that one of the problems is determining whether the scenic images added by Pamela Colman Smith, whether or not she was directed by Arthur Waite, and irrespective as to how influenced she may have been by the Sola Busca deck and divinatory views expressed by Papus, were genuinely warranted. Those who do not think these were warranted modifications of existing Tarot have reservations as to not how they may be used for divinatory purposes succesfully, but whether they somehow impact and influence - nay, I shall go further, hinder! - a deeper study into the Tarot. These are not superficial questions for the many of us who value the deck - irrespective as to where we stand with our provisional answers. Once we have carefully ascertained where we stand with regards to decks, it becomes, at times, a delicate razor's edge which we are asked to walk in such a wonderfully vibrant and positive community: on the one hand being true to oneself, and on the other allowing each the freedom to discover for themselves where they personally stand. What I strive for, is to continue walking... and each of my fellow travellers undoubtedly has views with which I shall be at odds... the better to sharpen my thoughts and reflections :)

Cerulean	23 Dec 2003
One point that I thought was interesting was bringing up Pamela Colman Smith's creation of pictures for the minor 'keys', an innovation that Arthur Waite seems to have directed. Perhaps this is a side note. Here's some meat from Arthur Waite on this subject--bear with me to the bottom conclusion: "Those who are gifted with reflective and discerning faculties in more than the ordinary sense--I am not speaking of clairvoyance--may observe that in many of the Lesser Arcana there are vague intimations conveyed by the designs which seem to exceed the stated divinatory values. It is desireable to avoid misconceptions by specifying definitely that, except in rare instances--and then only by accident--the variations are not to be regarded as suggestions of higher and extradivinatory symbolism. I have said that these Lesser Arcana have not been translated into a language which transcends that of fortune-telling. I should not be disposed to regard them as belonging in their existing form to another realm than this; but the field of divinatory possibilities is inexhaustible, by the hypothesis of the art, and the combined systems of cartomancy have indicated only the bare heads of significance attaching to the emblems in use. When in the pictures in the present case go beyond the conventional meanings they should be taken as hints of possible developments along the same lines; and this is one of the reasons why the pictorial devices here attached to the four denaries will prove a great help to intuition. The mere numerical powers and bare words of the meanings are insufficient by themselves; but the pictures are like doors which open into unexpected chambers, or like a turn in the open road with a prospect beyond." Part III: Outer Method of the Oracles I : Distinction Between the Greater and Lesser Arcana. The above text can be read along with the entire Pictorial Key to the Tarot at the link below (Mari will add): http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/pkt/ If the Rider Waite as a 1908-1910 design innovation introduced fully illustrated, scenic and populated stages for tarot users, Waite seems to be encouraged to try this innovation to make the tarot more accessible. My best wishes if this helps! Mari H.

Diana	23 Dec 2003
Quote: Originally posted by jmd Those who do not think these were warranted modifications of existing Tarot have reservations as to not how they may be used for divinatory purposes succesfully, but whether they somehow impact and influence - nay, I shall go further, hinder ! - a deeper study into the Tarot. There are those who have even greater reservations. They are the ones who wonder whether these modifications not only "impact and influence and hinder a deeper study into the Tarot", but whether they have not distorted the essence of Tarot itself. However, this does not remove the fact that those people who do wonder about such things, also believe that these modifications work wonderfully in divination and may be used for such with excellent results.

Kiama	24 Dec 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Diana There are those who have even greater reservations. They are the ones who wonder whether these modifications not only "impact and influence and hinder a deeper study into the Tarot", but whether they have not distorted the essence of Tarot itself. An excellent point Diana. (As always!) But what is the essence of Tarot? (No, don't answer... There are plenty of other trheads asking the same question, all of which seem to say we cannot answer fully that question!) }) I can't myself give an answer to it that even adequately suits me, but I feel that maybe the 'essence' of Tarot (whatever it may be!) cannot be distorted as long as people continue to view it in the way they have done for so long... Can somebody imply dingpictures to the cards distort the 'essence' of theTarot: the thing that makes Tarot Tarot? (Once again, I cannot answer this adquately!) Now, the answer all depends on whether you think the addition of illustrated Minors has changed the way people view the Tarot. JMD: I may not have expressed myself well enough when I said what you quoted. What I meant was that whilst I believe there to be certain 'traditional' (pre-set?) meanings to each card, having illustrated Minors helps me pick up on certain aspects of that meaning that may be more important to the querent's situation than other aspects may be. Kiama

Lee	25 Dec 2003
Quote: Originally posted by jmd I have no doubt that scenes, whether from Tarot-like images or other, may ease the ways in which a person may permit themself to open up to ever-so-detailed aspects which allows for a reading to unfold. I wanted to address this view, which apparently is shared by some, of illustrated pips as "training wheels" whose purpose is to make it easier for the beginner but which ultimately hinder the beginner's progress (I'm not sure that jmd meant to suggest all that, but I do think some people hold the view I describe). It's my view that illustrated pips make for a fundamentally different kind of deck, which one reads in a fundamentally different way, than unillustrated pips. And this different kind of deck is no better or worse than the Marseilles or any other unillustrated deck, and neither type of deck is intrinsically better suited for beginners or provides more difficulties later on in the reader's studies. I think Diana may be correct when she implies (I hope I'm not mischaracterizing her position, but this is what I get from it) that the Marseilles and illustrated decks need to be considered as being of two completely different categories, although I think she would categorize the Marseilles as "Tarot" and illustrated decks as "Divination Decks But Definitely Not Tarot," and I would disagree with that, I think they're both Tarot. I'm really not sure where the "training wheels" concept got started. I think it's inappropriate to think of illustrated decks in this way, for the simple reason that the way the scenes are illustrated in RWS-type decks suggests completely different meanings than one would obtain with a suit-plus-number system of assigning meaning to the pips, or, really, any system, because they were determined from a complex mish-mash of Golden Dawn correlations and cartomantic methods of the time which aren't used by anyone anymore. So, if one began by using an RWS-type deck, with the idea that one would "graduate" to using the Marseilles, all one would accomplish would be to internalize a set of RWS-inspired meanings, which I am assuming would be seen as most unsatisfactory by some of the Marseilles advocates on the forum. I also am confused by the notion that because illustrated pips offer more choices and elements to focus on, that this necessarily makes them "easier." To me, this is like saying it's "easier" to paint a painting with 50 colors than with five colors. In some ways it is, in some ways it isn't, but the distinction doesn't appear to me to be useful. It's a different process, requiring different methods and modes of thought. Better? Worse? I suppose it depends on the reader. A painting with five colors isn't inherently better or worse than the painting with 50 colors; it obviously depends on what the artist does with them. I've already addressed in another thread why I prefer to read with illustrated pips; briefly, I find more possibilities in the objects, motions, gestures, expressions, costumes, and settings, and more of a chance that a random element will allow me to bring factors into the reading that I wouldn't have thought of otherwise. One objection to illustrated pips is that they narrow the meaning of the card to that which is portrayed in the scene. This is true, in a way. However, in another sense it opens up the possibilities, because of the aforementioned tendency of the scenes to suggest elements that a generalized suit-plus-number interpretation would not necessarily catch. Also, in the RWS deck and its descendants, the pictures contain a wonderful ambiguity. This ambiguity tends to be ignored by Marseilles proponents, who speak of the RWS as if the pictures were to be considered diagrams whose sole purpose is to remind the reader of canned meanings. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The pictures are not used as reminders, but as jumping-off places for the intuition. Some people complain that the RWS pictures narrow the pip cards into categories of positive and negative. However, I think that would be to look at the pictures far too superficially. For example, the 3 of Swords shows a heart impaled by three swords, certainly not a cheerful image. But there is no requirement to see it negatively. It could simply symbolize an intellectual, non-emotional approach. In this case the three swords could be seen as the equivalent of the international icon symbol for "no," i.e. a circle with a diagonal line through it. In other words, "not-emotional." The 10 of Swords, showing a person lying on the ground with ten swords in him (the "human pincushion") could simply mean the end of something, with no emotional component attached. It seems strange to me that some Marseilles advocates can look at a picture of three swords on the Marseilles and see a world of meaning, but when they look at the RWS 3 of Swords, they see only a simplistic diagram illustrating "heartbreak." Rachel Pollack once wrote a book called "The Open Labyrinth," a book of readings, which shows the depth and breadth of what can be accomplished with the RWS deck. Unfortunately this book is out of print, otherwise I would recommend it for people who have difficulty in understanding why anyone would possibly prefer to read with illustrated pip decks. I also think it's an interesting point that the pip cards of antique decks like the Marseilles and the Soprafino were not designed to be used for divination. They were designed to play games with. So there would be some justification for the suggestion that by reading with the RWS or similar decks, one is more fully honoring the intent of the deck's creator, and more fully honoring the spirit of divination, since those decks were actually designed for the purposes to which we're putting them. (I'm not saying I actually believe that, only that one could make the argument.) -- Lee

Imagemaker	25 Dec 2003
Lee, what a fabulously wise statement, with which I fully agree and could never have articulated so clearly. Bravo for your specific and detailed focus on this rambling topic of unnecessary dissension between tarot camps.

jmd	25 Dec 2003
Lee has wonderfully expanded on my brief sentence to discuss specifically one of Tarot's aspects: the mantic one. This of course brings it back to the point made in my original post. The paragraphs from my first post of greater import (certainly to me) are, however, the following: 'With the Tarot, however, is that what it is all about? Is the reading of it such that is gains precedence over its other aspects? If the answer is in the affirmative, then of course, one is quite at liberty to alter images at whim - or indeed add images wherever one decides or desires' and the final sentence to the ensuing paragraph: 'Those who do not think these were warranted modifications of existing Tarot have reservations as to not how they may be used for divinatory purposes succesfully, but whether they somehow impact and influence - nay, I shall go further, hinder! - a deeper study into the Tarot' This 'deeper study' referred to, in the sense here intended, has nothing to do with its divinatory uses. It has to do with other factors (not its gaming ones, by the way, for which any deck will do, though the gaming is simpler with decks designed for the purpose). The mathematical structures inherent in the depiction of the pips comes to mind. As does a reflection on the various geometrical images thereby depicted (hence part of the reason I do consider them illustrated - just not scenically). As does what this may bring to meditative reflection. Of course, with Tarot's divinatory aspects, I agree with Lee that one may focus on not only peculiar details which take on a life of their own. His two examples (the three and ten of swords from the RWCS deck), however, precisely focus on the specific image as a whole as represented on the RWCS deck. To give yet another example of scenic depictions, a deck which depicted scenically the three of Wands/Sticks/Bastons such as in Poussin's Bergers d'Arcadie would of course have absolutely beautiful imagery, which also includes three staffs, and has so many aspects which may lead one to read the image in myriad ways (aided too, in this case, by the many books written just on this image!). The question could still be legitimately asked, however, as to whether this image change from simply three Bastons to the specific scene (though it includes three staffs) is 'legitimate' in terms of Tarot - not whether is may either assist divination, or whether it limits or broadens possible interpretations. It does become a question, I suppose, as to how one determines whether a 78 card deck is in fact Tarot, or whether it is a beautiful deck which has wonderfully rich possibilities for divination (and other uses), and though connected to the Tarot, is more of a related cousin (as is increasingly considered of the Etteilla - though it was at one stage viewed by many as THE Tarot). By even mentioning the number 78, I have already made a claim for Tarot which some may find 'dogmatic' - for some claim that Tarot has, or can have, either more or less than this number of cards. The essential question, to my mind, is whether a deck is deemed to be Tarot.

Alex	05 Jan 2004
I'm sure I've said it before in different posts, but I will say again for the sake of repetition. The question of what is Tarot and what is not Tarot is an essentialist question that can be completely separated from the question "what types of deck are better for divination/ teaching/ psychological work/ dream therapy/ etc. Discussions about what is the "true" this or "true" that are very common. In my field, people discuss endlessly what is the "true" systematic (theory/method of of classification of living things). That which roots to Linneaus (basically essentialist)? Evolutionary classification? Phenetic classification? In psychology, people ask "what is the true psychotherapy?" Freudian psychoanalysis and derivations thereof? Humanistic therapy? Cognitive therapy? Essentialist questions have their place, but we have to keep in mind that they can be efficiently separated from the pragmatic question "what works best?” The answer to the first question is philosophical in nature. One can discuss it endlessly. The answer to the latter is based on personal experience. More often than not, I see Diana asking a philosophical question “what is the tarot” and then innumerous people give a pragmatic answer. My suggestion is: let’s discuss these two issues separately, for a change, and I believe, much more will result from the discussion. Thanks Lee and JMD for your beautiful posts. I always enjoy the way you guys write (wish English were any closer to a native language to me so I could make it up for you both!) Alex.

Indigo Rose	05 Jan 2004
Well spoken Lee on the "training wheels" comment. It seems like vain pride to suggest that reading unillustrated PIPS makes one a better Tarot reader, or somehow more spiritually evolved. It also seems morally wrong to be prideful in regards to Tarot. It is not a competitive sport. It is a deeply personal and powerful tool in people's lives. We should encourage one another as we travel this path. Illustrated vs. non-illustrated PIPS should be of no importance, except on a personal level and discussed only as a matter of preference. This is not the past....we are evolving as a people, and so our philosophies and belief systems are evolving in a like manner. We will carry the universal truths with us, but must be open to new ways of thinking. Blessings. Indigo Rose

Diana	05 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Indigo Rose It seems like vain pride to suggest that reading unillustrated PIPS makes one a better Tarot reader, or somehow more spiritually evolved. It also seems morally wrong to be prideful in regards to Tarot. Have there been people on Aeclectic who have suggested this? (I mean concerning being a better Tarot reader, or spiritually evolved?) Or is this more of a kind of a musing....?

Indigo Rose	05 Jan 2004
Just a muse. AT has been quite open and supportive, to my experience. Being a bit philosophical on the topic, as the thoughts came to me. :)

Cerulean	05 Jan 2004
I actually don't think my little side note addresses tradition so much as my amazement at least few authors and at least one two artist/scholars grounded in tarot knowledge who also expanded meanings for pip patterns using their imaginations. One author, Italo Calvino made the Visconti and Marseilles decks the subject of short stories--of course he was a folktale expert and tossed late-night ramblings with Italian folktales and cards-- for Italo Calvino's Crossed Destinies, both his Castle and Tavern. He made a jumble of pip patterns symbolize roads, signposts and it read both as a story and puzzle. I found that Tavaglione and Scapini, both artists and authors, have taken the standard Visconti and Marseilles design and meanings further and integrated a kind of storytelling that amazes me. Crowley's short notes and Lady Frieda Harris' explanations of the pip patterns and courts add a lot of food for thought to otherwise abstract designs. And the pip meanings do differ from Scapini and Calvino's storytelling structure based on the Visconti/Marseilles patterns. All the above patterns to me--the Visconti, Marseilles, Tavaglione, Scapini and Crowley's patterns and designs--they are still tarot to me, although their patterns have gone down different roads and require for me, different ways of reading the tarots. Calvino as a storyteller is almost in a class by himself, yet what he did to me seems tarotlike. I may be wandering too far afield... Mari H.

HOLMES	05 Jan 2004
for i didn't understand a lot of the words used in this thread . eheh but regarding pips, it is like the use of reversals for some and dignities to others. each to his own. then again i recalla famous line, "keep christmas your way and let me keep christmas mine." says scrooge "but you don't keep it" says the nephew. is that any reason to say you have to do it some way? (i am glad that scrooge came around to keep christmas in his new changed way and we cheered him for it, but in the long run we are wishing him to change for our version of the better are we not ?) for those who do not use reversals i once would of said in my younger days but you don't use reversals at all. and for who don't use illustrated pips i would of said but you don't use any illustrated pips at all. but i realize that those who use not reversals do take into account reversals in some way(the accidental reversal for example) and those who don't use any ilustrated pips do use illustrated pips in some way (they see geometric shapes and symbols which is beyond my grasp at this time ). i think in the case of scrooge example when we say you don't keep christmas, we would be saying but you dont' read tarot to put it inot tarot context. and now where do we say you don't put up your stockings. (translationg you dont' use reversals ) nor do you use a tree . (translationg rituals ) or give lumps of coals (use old school ways of reading the tarot for example) i know i would say are you crazy ? if someone asked me to put candles on my tree for i know if i am not careful and giving my clumsy i would start a fire. but my trees are light. so for some their response would be are you crazy ? but they have their own reasons which makes perfect sense to them and more power to them. right ? to me the toth pips are not non illustrated. to me they are just 5 swords for example sitting by each others with no discernable patterns or added beuty like lady freida put on her toth tarot. but that is how i read the tarot eheh

Lorem	06 Jan 2004
Interesting topic... I had to read the original post about four times before I had absorbed it all. It seems to me that jmd's inquiry isn't so much about whether scenic or unscenic (is that a word?? Who cares, i'm using it) minors are better for reading, but rather about how the addition of scenic minors has impacted tarot. As I see it, the core issue is "how much can you change it from the original and still call it Tarot?" This of course requires one to answer, or at least ponder, the question of "What is Tarot?," and from looking over past threads on this topic it appears to be beautifully unanswered. If one says that Tarot is first and foremost a divinatory system, then I think the addition of scenic minors has most likely aided the advancement of tarot by modernising it. By Waite's time, the practice of magic was beginning to drift away from complex esoteric systems (Masonry, Alchemy, and such things) and more towards intuitive and personal systems (which eventually led to the modern conception of magic(k) -- the empowerment of will -- popularised by Crowley et al much later, and the subsequent rise of the NeoPagan movement). The RWS deck, and Waite's book, allowed for the transformation of tarot from a system that had to be learned from an occult organisation (the only place one could at the time get the necessary info about numerology and correspondences) to a system that could be used through intuition, by anybody. Thus Waite's deck was something of a revolution, allowing divination to anyone who was willing to invest the time and energy to learn the cards. Naturally, tarot became much more visible and popular after this point. If the RWS didn't exist, then about 90% of the decks on the market today would never have been created and I wouldn't be here writing this. Certainly all of that is worth something. But jmd's point is that Tarot is not just a divinatory system, but something more than that. After all, the original purpose of Marseilles-type decks was to play a game that nobody plays anymore. To this, I propose that Tarot is an art form. There are people who collect and study historic playing card decks, and they'd probably agree. Like any art form, either it changes or it dies. As styles and cultural preferences change, various works and styles of art go in and out of fashion, and to try to say that one work/period/style is better than another is an art historian's worst headache. Renoir couldn't capture emotion half as well as Rembrandt or render the human form anywhere near the way Michelangelo could, but his works have a living vibrancy that the classical artists didn't have. Taking this view of tarot history, RWS-style decks became the dominant form after the RWS was published, and held sway for quite some time, but are (in the last ten years or so) being supplanted by more modern, non-Waite-style decks. To be sure, there are still a few recently-created Marseilles-style decks out there, but most of them seem to be attempts to recreate the look and feel of historical decks rather than to add new meanings or interpretations to the tarot world. So as to the question of whether or not this is Tarot: Go to a postmodern art museum and ask yourself, "Is this Art?" If you can do that (and I can't), then deciding whether a certain collection of 78 (or however many) cards is a tarot deck shouldn't be too hard. Sorry for rambling. Lorem

Diana	06 Jan 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Lorem After all, the original purpose of Marseilles-type decks was to play a game that nobody plays anymore. Lorem: Your post is thought-provoking and I think you figured out the gist of the thread very well. :) However, I just want to point out that your sentence that I quote above is not a fact accepted by everyone. There is no proof that the Tarot of Marseilles was a game to start out with. Especially the Major Arcana which seem to be the Major Essence of tarot (which doesn't make the Minor Essence inferior.) I am one of those many people who have a deep conviction that Tarot was NOT a game to start with.

jmd	07 Jan 2004
Personally, I would certainly not see scenically illustrated pips metaphorically as somehow having 'training wheels'. If the analogy works at all - which I have personal reservations about, as may already be clear from some of my posts - it is whether adding wheels makes for a new vehicle. In travelling, as in reading, neither may intrinsically be better than the other. My car, for example, has its engine mounted at 180 degrees to the engines of other cars I have seen (and rotary engines are again different). Its front-wheel drive certainly gives it a different 'feel' when cornering at higher speeds than a rear-wheel driven or fourwheel driven one (pity the police don't agree that speed limits are really for those who drive the other kinds of cars). This is not a question about what is best - though some vehicles may have better practical applications for the driving styles of certain individuals. On the question of the 'essence of Tarot', then, it is precisely important not only to gain a deeper understanding of Tarot, but also because it does have certain practical applications. If - and it is a big ask - Tarot is the embodiment in particular structures of specific impulses, then, though other decks (to use Alex's list) may give the impression of being better decks for teaching, divination or dream therapy, they would not be better decks for teaching Tarot, divining by Tarot, or conducting dream therapy with Tarot as a reflector. I realise that the essentialist view has been (rightfully, perhaps) dropped in a number of areas. Perhaps the essentialist position in the investigation of languages or in the biological sciences is either too difficult or inappropriate. Each field has to also develop its proper means of investigation, and the tools and mechanisms in one may not bear fruit when applied to another sphere - or may only bear the types of fruit similarly described in that other sphere. Thus, looking at Tarot with the tools of psychology will undoubtedly unveil some of its psychological wonders and applications. This is not, however, and in my view, Tarot per se. Neither is it that investigating the correlations between certain neurological ganglions and their necessary functioning for sight to occur itself sight. At best, it shows where - in the case of the latter - in the brain the visual cortext is located. Ie, it shows which part of the brain is involved in 'picking up' colours, shapes, movement etc.. My hand 'similarly' picks my coffee cup (excuse me a second whilst I indulge in the same - mmm... it was getting on the coolish side, but still wonderful!). Describing what goes on in my hand, however, will not describe the act of 'picking up a cup, filled with delicious black coffee'. Pragmatic questions are of course also very useful - at times, however, the pragmatism will reflect what is already assumed. If someone wishes to learn Tarot, for example, and they grab a deck, will they be learning Tarot? This will depend on whether or not the deck picked is Tarot. Mari_Hoshizaki mentions a wonderful story teller in Calvino (and some of the stories which have included Tarot in their development I have yet to obtain and indulge). No matter how wonderful the stories are, however, questions could still be asked as to how Tarot connected they are - and our answer will depend on a developed appreciation for the 'being of Tarot', whether we are able to clearly articulate it or not. Finally (for this long-winded and winding post) Lorem brings another important consideration, and speaks of the need for Tarot - which is proposed to be an art form - to change in order to remain alive. In some ways, I can but only agree, but not in an expected form. It needs to change, in the sense that it gets picked up and created anew by each of us. In order to do this, there will doubtless be many attempts to re-present the life it in-corp-orate(s). Nonetheless, this 'life' will need to be deemed accurately represented or not. And again, here we return to whether the deck has essential characteristics which makes it, properly, Tarot. To finish with a note taken from Holmes, whether or not Scrooge celebrates Christmas, Christmas comes annually. He may choose to enter its spirit, and partake of the same, or not. Christmas, however, remains Christmas - and different to other wonderful traditional celebrations, such as Hanukkah.

Melvis	07 Jan 2004
Taking into account a number of ideas from the wonderful posts so far, my speculation is that perhaps the 'updating' that Waite and Smith did was done not merely for sake of modernizing an antiquated system, but to allow people's 'modern' (meaning early 1900's) thought processes to be fully utilized. ('Utilized' is a poor word choice, but you get my meaning) It may be difficult to explain myself, but here goes! :) The way we consider an event or situation today, in 2004, differs greatly from the way people would consider a similar event in 1900. The list of reasons for this difference could be infinite, but such factors as advances in science, changing social patterns, and the splintering of traditional religions may be near the top of that list. And there could have been a similar change in perceptual thinking from the time the Marseilles and other decks were created to the time of the RWS deck. An example that first came to mind was that of a reader turning over a 3 of Batons back when the Marseilles was new. They may have divined, "Oh, a 3 is a powerful number! It is the number of the Holy Trinity and a lucky number! So this card means that your home will be blessed and all your plantings around the house will yield three-times over their normal yield!" Or whatever...I apologize if my example is poor, but the point I'm trying to make is that, while the general theme of a particular tarot card may not have changed that much over the years, our associations of that theme with everyday life may have. Thus, when the RWS was created, perhaps they thought it was time to show more of a spectrum of life as it existed at that time, more than 300 years past the time of my 3 of Batons reader. So, does that mean that Tarot will keep changing and evolving, to keep up with people's changing perceptions? Yes, I think so. But I also think the key to the Tarot's longevity has been the connection it fosters in its adherents to the past. No matter how one comes to study Tarot, there inevitably seems to be a point where one looks back into Tarot history, to connect the modern cards with ancient Kings and Queens, Knights and Pages. Afterwards, the person may or may not continue on their Tarot journey in the exact same way one would have in those ancient years, but the connection has been made, and something about the cards (and probably about one's self) has likely been learned from the history lesson. Therein lies Tarot's power, in my opinion. Peace, Melvis :TSTRE

The Tradition... Ah! Tradition! thread was originally posted on 22 Dec 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.