Different decks, different meanings?!?!?

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 26 Oct 2001, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Sol	26 Oct 2001
HI I have been studying and reading tarot for the last three years, although I started with the "Tarot of marseilles", Im using now the "Rider-deck". I have read a lot of books about tarot interpretation, and the thing is, one important german author says in his books that the cards in Rider-deck should be interpretate in a different way than the cards of other decks, because it is quite different from others in his artwork, symbols or whatever. This is sort of confusing, Should I not use the meaning of marseilles cards for Rider deck??? Should every deck be interpretate in "his own way"??? I thought tarot was about universal archetypes!!!!!! Thanks for your opinions!!! Sol.

Freddie	27 Oct 2001
Hi Sol, I agree with you. Yesterday I bought a deck of Art Nouveau cards and when I opened them I wasn't too happy becauseall the minor arcan (pips mainly) has original scenes on them. I thought here we go again having to change all of the card meanings.... I gave up on them before even trying them. Later on in the evening I pulled them out and found myself connecting with certain cards so I tried a cold reading (test) with them. It turned out to be a little more more than a cold reading and I found the cards reach me on a deep level. I then pulled out the instruction book for the Art Nouveau cards ( about 12 of them were giving me "meaning" conflicts) and found the card meanings were the same even though the scenes depicted on them were different. I just needed to understand the symbolism of the deck. Some decks are really out there and different, but for a traditional based deck (reguardless of art style) The card meanings are generally the same I've found. I started on 1JJ Swiss and then worked with Rider-Waite, so I know where your coming from. It's a big transition to move to a deck with all picture cards. If anything you'll add more meanings to your memory with the Rider-Waite deck (and with other decks in the future). I'd suggest you get "The Pictorial Key To The Tarot" by Waite, this book will point out to you the symbolism of the deck and you'll find all the Mars. meanings you have already learned are in the Rider-Waite decK also. Good Luck, Freddie

Mojo	27 Oct 2001
If you only want one set of meanings, why have different decks??? I really don't understand why anyone would want to be limited in their reading of the Tarot in any way. I don't even want the individual cards to always mean the same thing all the time. Even with 78 different cards, if you do enough readings it gets old using the same interpretations over and over again. That's why I always let the images on the card lead me. And that's why each time a card turns up, I allow myself to notice a different part of the image and use that to guide my interpretation. And when I want even more variety, I go to one of my backup decks with completely different imagery. However, since there really aren't any hard and fast rules, I don't see any reason why you can't apply the same set of definitions to different decks. It's all about whatever works best for you.

Clau	04 Jan 2005
Hi, I hope this doesn't sound so ignorant, but.... I always thought the symbolism and the "meaning" of the cards were pretty much the same no matter what deck you are talking about, astro stuff, runes, colors included etc., more or less the cards were pretty similar...what changed were just the drawings on the cards... BUT, I'm reading "La Via del Tarot" by Jodorowsky, and *whatever we think about him and his work* the has surprised me with a whole different world of meanings especially for the minor arcana. My first deck was Marseille (very popular down here) and a DO-it-yourself-how-to-be-a-fortune-teller book based on marseille......well, you gotta start somewhere right??? LOL :P then I studied for 2 years based on the RW deck, but I never realized they were so different in their meaning and interpretation!! If Marseille is an "older" deck, how did we come to RW? Are there like different Tarot Schools? Are they so different? How so? I'm not asking about "validity" because is not my point but.. I might be totally off here, but I'm all confused now, care to enlighten me? thanks in advance, Clau

dadsnook2000	04 Jan 2005
Decks are like their creators -- they are all different, have different views and experiences, different goals and forms of expression. While it would be nice to say they all have a common basis, you are quite correct in seeing that those decks we consider as "foundations" in Tarot today are also different in their own way and spring from a source further back in time. There are many more knowledgable than I but relatively modern "roots" may be considered as consisting of the Marseille, the Troth and the RWS. There are others that might be considered as worthy to join these three as modern sources of inspiration for other decks. However, those three also had their roots and others can illuminate us on them. Today we have a great number of decks that have evolved far enough from one of the prior mentioned "three" that they might be considered to founding their own important development lines. These include some of the "goddess" decks, some very modern "concept" decks, and one of my favorites -- the Fey Tarot. Yet, even in all of these there are similarities. I'm sure that this thread will EXPLODE into passionately-held posts claiming and counter-claiming different views. Lets listen and learn. Dave.

Grizabella	04 Jan 2005
I've come to believe that, for me at least, it's a matter of the images making sense to my subconscious mind. Some decks trigger things in the subconscious better, and since no mind is ever just like anyone else's, some decks trigger less and some trigger more depending on how similar my way of interpreting images is to the mind of the author of the particular deck. I'm not a history buff, so I haven't studied tarot history, but from what I've read here, tarot didn't start out to be a "reading" kind of thing. It started out as a game. Therefore, there had to be at least one person who started "reading" the cards as we've come to do today and it took off from thre. Then others started learning, borrowing from what that original person "saw" in the cards and devising their own meanings to add to them. Then the more modern decks came about and off we've gone. Of all the decks, I think maybe RW hit on some symbols that trigger meanings for the greater number of people. Or maybe it was that RW was one of the first ones to depart from the Marseilles or whatever other early deck and people found that the illustrated pips were more stimulus to their imagination so it became popular. I imagine RW was probably revolutionary in its time and that it was THE deck with illustrated pips and the easiest for people to acquire. Maybe it was both aspects that made it so popular. Now that there's a greater acceptance and tarot is so popular, we've seen a big outgrowth of all kinds of decks and they're more based on themes and individual interests of the artists so it's getting a little harder to make solid connections with those decks. Now, what was the question? I think I got sidetracked. :p

Fudugazi	04 Jan 2005
Clau wrote: I always thought the symbolism and the "meaning" of the cards were pretty much the same no matter what deck you are talking about... ... BUT, I'm reading "La Via del Tarot" by Jodorowsky, and *whatever we think about him and his work* the has surprised me with a whole different world of meanings especially for the minor arcana. If Marseille is an "older" deck, how did we come to RW? Are there like different Tarot Schools? Are they so different? How so? dadsnook2000 wrote: Decks are like their creators -- they are all different, have different views and experiences, different goals and forms of expression. While it would be nice to say they all have a common basis, you are quite correct in seeing that those decks we consider as "foundations" in Tarot today are also different in their own way and spring from a source further back in time. Hi Clau, I think Dave put it very succintly. The one thing I'd add is that the Tarot de Marseille, used by Jodorowski (and I think good things of his work - tarot and non-tarot) did not have a "creator" in the same sense as the Thoth (Aleister Crowley and Lady Harris) and the RWS (Arthur Waite and Patricia Colman Smith). There are some passionate claims and counter-claims concerning the Tarot de Marseille on this and other fora, but the reality is, its date and place of birth is unknown, and it probably went through all sorts of mutations before reaching the form it has today (which is basically a mid-18th centuy form). What we can say is that the symbolism and the iconography on the Marseille cards was common around the time tarot was born (14th-15th centuries) and for the couple of centuries before - some are much older, since much of the Middle Ages in Europe had its intellectual roots in the Ancient world (particularly the late Antiquity), as well as through exchange with the Middle East (Arab texts and Arab tranlsations of Greek texts formed an important intellectual base throughout the Middle Ages). Of course, Jodorowski and Camoin, in their "restored" (in reality recreated) Tarot de Marseille, also injected some of their own beliefs about the Tarot, though the basic iconography remains the same (there are some differences worth noting). So in a way they can also be called "creators", but not in the way that Crowley and Waite are, who founded schools of thought and reinvented the tarot to fit their esoteric beliefs. You will find many passionate discussions regarding all of the above on this forum. If you are interested in the Marseille meaning, take a look at the Marseille section of the forum (in Marseille and other Early Decks). You will be able to draw your own conlcusions about the differences with the RWS system. I'll also say that I enjoy Jodo's book very much. I learnt Tarot with the RWS system, and like you have had to make the transition. I find that, rather than confusing me, studying the Marseille is making me more aware of the RWS and Thoth traditions and give more attention to the cards. My approach is less automatic than before, and I am sure my overall knowledge of the the different schools of tarot is enhanced. I am finding the Marseille more demanding of my imagination and intellect than either the other two traditions, which suits me. I don't think the meanings are so fixed as with the others, it is a more fluid approach to the cards, and at the same time, very rigorous. You use numbers much more than in RWS or Thoth. But I am willing to be contradicted (just as well, I probably will be ;) )

Fudugazi	04 Jan 2005
Lyric wrote: Of all the decks, I think maybe RW hit on some symbols that trigger meanings for the greater number of people. Or maybe it was that RW was one of the first ones to depart from the Marseilles or whatever other early deck and people found that the illustrated pips were more stimulus to their imagination so it became popular. I imagine RW was probably revolutionary in its time and that it was THE deck with illustrated pips and the easiest for people to acquire. Maybe it was both aspects that made it so popular. I think it's simpler than that. Arthur Edward Waite was English and his deck was popularised in the English-speaking world. That's why anglophones have the impression that RWS is more popular. Where I come from, and in most French-speaking and other Romance countries, the RWS hardly gets a look-in, though it is gaining ground. It is possible to find RWS decks in the esoteric shops now, which was impossible a few years ago. I learnt with RWS for the simple reason that I was living in England at the time. But my French and Spanish friends only know the Tarot de Marseille. Jodorowski is Chilean. Quite the opposite from you, I and many others find that pips without figures on them (they are of course illustrated, just not with people) are far more stimulating of the imagination than the RWS figured pips. I can't believe the difference- and I read with RWS and clones for some 7 happy years! I find those flowers and coins and cups and swords and clubs make their way into my subconscious in a revolutionary and far more subtle way than the RWS pictures. I am amazed that something so old can be so fresh.

damfino	04 Jan 2005
I think that, when it comes to Tarot, there is no such thing as "THE" way to interpret a card. Of course, all interpretations has a similar basis, which lies on the concept of the card, or even the name of the card. For example, Justice. Whatever image the card shows, I think we all have a similar idea on what Justice is. But then that concept is enriched by the details presented on the card, and we have to understand that it's ok if our interpretation differs from something that someone else explained. Another thing is that a single card from a single deck has more than one meaning already, depending on where and how it is placed on a reading... but that's another story. Jodorowsky's way of Tarot is *his* way of Tarot. It's obvious the man has researched and studied A LOT to get to the interpretations he gives of the cards... I haven't read this book in particular (only because I haven't been able to find it :/), but Jodorowsky has always been the kind of person that, like Zen masters, only shows you a guideline on how to do things, and then expect that you accomplish them on your own. I can't imagine Jodorowsky saying something along the lines of "my version of the card is right and everything else is wrong". Again, I have not read the book... but I'm lead to think that he's only offering the symbols he found on Tarot and their explanation according to what he knows (remeber that he's strong on knowledge about alchemy, the kabalah, astrology, religion, mythology, etc; so his opinions are often well founded), presenting them as a guideline, a basis for the Tarot reader to expand their knowledge and be able to make more rich and objective interpretations of the cards. Now, different decks... ok, I haven't studied any deck that wasn't the Marseilles or the RWS, so my opinion here is not really broad... but I think that the cards may have a different intention. Just the Minor Arcana works nicely as an example... RWS is full of imagery that makes it easy (relatively speaking) to interpret, whereas Marseilles has only the figures/colors, leaving a good chunk of the work up to you. But I think that Tarot is an universal tool of personal use... ultimately it's you who gives the reading, so the meaning of the cards is tied to what you know, or what experiences you've had. I think it's a great thing that so many ways of Tarot exists... you get to know why Jodorowsky or Hadar says something, and then you can see how it applies to your personal readings. Maybe you can even combine symbols from one school to another... I don't know. I'm really no expert on this matters...

Fudugazi	04 Jan 2005
I agree with Damfino. With time and careful learning from the masters you develop your own method, interpretations, etc. Intuition grows at the same time as knowledge, too. The important thing is to remain open even then, without blowing with every prevailing wind. Still, within each tradition there are certain ways of interpreting - broadly speaking - eg. you don't interpret Marseille with RWS meanings, or Thoth with Marseille meanings, it makes no sense of the cards in front of you. As for other types of tarot - are they really tarot if they are very different from either of these three? or Oracles? (nothing wrong with oracles, btw). But that's another question. The deck creators should explain in detail meanings that are very different from the traditions, additional cards, and any extra symbolism or system or they might have put in cards that otherwise follow one of the main traditions - of course, you are much more dependent on them than with the traditions, which have attracted a mass of commentary. But there too, you develop your own way. I agree with Damfino re: Jodo, btw. Although he is very rigorous in his approach, and mystical at times, I have not found his Way to be exclusive. The only thing he does say, in the introduction, is that to read the Tarot de Marseille, one must take the whole tradition, and be faithful to it (not his interpretation of the tradition, but the tradition). I have a synchretic mind, so I learn as fully as I can from a discipline or philosophy - then take what fulfills me, what my spirit needs. Tant pis pour Jodo on that subject.

Umbrae	04 Jan 2005
I have to add… As a reader, each card – as it appears in a spread, surrounded by different cards, will have a different meaning each time. A card must have context in relation to a sitter’s life situation – not a little white book… Sure the artist had an idea in mind… Picasso had an idea in mind, and when he placed his idea on canvas, he gave me license to enjoy his work in my own way… Mozart never said I had to hear the subdominate theme in the Rondo a la Turca ONE WAY… And any artist that thinks I MUST interpret THEIR card THEIR way is just plain egotistical and wrong. My ego has nothing to do with tarot. It’s about the sitter and the sitter’s life…and context with their life.

Clau	05 Jan 2005
Well you guys, great thread so far! Ok so What I got from your postings is all decks have a common root and a "Base" meaning, and every artist has added something of their own, PLUS the interpretation we make helped by our intuition, experience, position, etc. So then, why I have seen, for example, when someone does a reading and asks about it many people do ask about the deck that was used for that reading. Does this make any difference? or is just a matter of picturing the cards that were used? I don't mean the subjective intepretaton because that is a given, but can a deck have a totally different menaing for their cards that the meaning can be opposite to other deck? or there are just variations of the same thing? thanks for your anwers! Clau

Fudugazi	05 Jan 2005
Hi Clau, not quite - Thoth, RWS and Marseilles are three distinct traditions (even if Thoth and RWS grew out of Marseille) and shouldn't be confused, or you're intepretation simply won't match the card and will be like learning by rote from the LWB of one card to match another. You learn the discipline of each tradition you wish to (ie RWS if you reead RWS-type cards), and develop your own method. Even from the start, you can start having a feel - your own special feel - for the cards. It's like art: you practice and practice, learn from the masters, then tear away the rule book and do your own thing. But don't confuse your Titians with your Benin sculplture when you are learning.

tmgrl2	05 Jan 2005
Umbrae wrote: I have to add… As a reader, each card – as it appears in a spread, surrounded by different cards, will have a different meaning each time. A card must have context in relation to a sitter’s life situation – not a little white book… Sure the artist had an idea in mind… Picasso had an idea in mind, and when he placed his idea on canvas, he gave me license to enjoy his work in my own way… Mozart never said I had to hear the subdominate theme in the Rondo a la Turca ONE WAY… And any artist that thinks I MUST interpret THEIR card THEIR way is just plain egotistical and wrong. My ego has nothing to do with tarot. It’s about the sitter and the sitter’s life…and context with their life. Here! Hear! Now that I have been digging through various books..including Jodo's in French, Hadar's, Klea and Sedillot in French and a whole host of books in English, it's really all about the "magic" that happens when we sit down with a deck of cards and a sitter. Read, sort, learn, study. Enjoy all of it. You will find what works for you as you go along But nothing substitutes for reading for a sitter who is there in the moment with all that each of you brings to the reading. The more I read for people "live" as I go along this journey of learning, the more I learn about what the cards can say. terri

Fudugazi	05 Jan 2005
That's absolutely true, terri and Umbrae - but we need both. And more! As a querent I don't want to sit across from an ignorant reader, nor do I enjoy someone who sounds like they are reciting from a book. We build our skill and strength as a reader in many ways, all complementary. One way that doesn't get enough mention on this board is the use of imagination, alongside intuition and study - creative, wide-ranging, informed and bursting imagination.

dadsnook2000	05 Jan 2005
Some decks, if read in the way that their creator designed them for, can't be read as if they were another deck. Some decks are designed with Wands equating to Air and Swords equating to Fire. This changes a cards reading; take for instance the eight of wands -- messages and thoughts or action? That could change a reading. Then there are cards like the RWS Justice and the Fey Justice. Their meanings are no where alike. So, if you wish to use various decks that also embody differing concepts, then you had better be flexible, IMHO. Dave.

firemaiden	07 Jan 2005
Umbrae wrote: I have to add… As a reader, each card – as it appears in a spread, surrounded by different cards, will have a different meaning each time. A card must have context in relation to a sitter’s life situation – not a little white book… Sure the artist had an idea in mind… Picasso had an idea in mind, and when he placed his idea on canvas, he gave me license to enjoy his work in my own way… Mozart never said I had to hear the subdominate theme in the Rondo a la Turca ONE WAY… And any artist that thinks I MUST interpret THEIR card THEIR way is just plain egotistical and wrong. My ego has nothing to do with tarot. It’s about the sitter and the sitter’s life…and context with their life. What is so shocking, and so interesting about what Umbrae says, is that the same work of art from the same artist will look different from day to day, depending on the perspective of he who views it. Hark... we affect what we see? One day listening to Rondo a la Turca - you might suddenly notice the subdominate theme, and come on, don't tell me you never noticed it before... maybe you were in a sub-dominant mood that day... It reminds me of that Miro paining I slept under in Berlin for months -- "Naissance du Jour" -- all dots and squiggles -- every day entirely different and new faces would show up in the paint splatters. The details which pop out at you in one tarot card from day to day might be different, and the subject focus too... often I find myself fixing on one character in a card as representative of the querant's point of view, another day, another character... Since we were discussing the Chariot: one day it could the blue horse who whinnies "I am the querant... oh how miserable I am being tied to this red horse, and how little he heeds me". The next day your client might be the red one saying "oh how happy I am to be linked to my dear blue horse, yet how bossy he is...." The next day the querant might be the Charioteer himself saying "I am so amused to be on this charming carosel ride... too bad it's only a dream, but what a grand adventure!" One day might your sitter might all three characters, Plato's model of the triparite soul... torn between extremes and hurtling to an uncertain outcome... On yet another day, your poor victim might be none of these, but rather the viewer himself, gazing upon the charioteer and about to get run over by it...

tmgrl2	07 Jan 2005
This is so true, fm. I don't remember when I first noticed the wheels in the Charioteer, at least in the TdM decks. It was early in my study of Tarot (LOL, early? like now I'm well into it? NOT!) ....but when I first saw that, the whole thing changed. Someone in a TdM Reading Circle once saw a big X (Gardener...now as I remember it, in one of the earlier Let's Marseille threads) on one of the X of some suit and she saw it like a big X we see on universal signs meaning STOP! DON'T do it! I loved that. That, to me is the beauty of a reading in the moment. It's also one of the reasons I don't like to "pick apart" a reading unless the reader and sitter want it or unless I post it under "Your Readings." I really feel that that first "aha" is very important. If we are "studying" a card, or even asking "How May It Be Read?" as we are in the threads jmd started under the TdM Forum, then we all jump aboard with how we may read a card. Then , I love to read different takes on the cards from different people. As I read the book A Wicked Pack of Cards, which Umbrae recommended to me when I first started, I am seeing how little is "doctrine" and how much is added by what the individual brings to the Tarot. I wasn't ready to read that book when I first started. There was way too much in it historically than I could take in with understanding. Now it seems, the time is riper for me to read it. It really is quite wonderful and is the first of two in a series. As I said recently in another thread, we can only bring to the Table of Tarot what we have experienced at the Table of Life. Our counsel is no better than what we have learned about life and, perhaps, about what we are in the process of learning about life and about the various aspects of our being. terri

Jamwalls	15 Jan 2005
If you use more than one particular deck for readings, do you find that one interpretation works for all decks, or do you alter the meaning as specific to the deck? The one thing that confuses me more than anything when I buy a new deck is how the artist / designer has decided to interpret their cards which can be almost the opposite of other meanings, and I was wondering how others adapt to this. I know the argument could also be for using instinct, but it's difficult when you are so used to a cards specific meaning from one deck only to find a totally new one from another if you see my point (I hope you do ha ha) James

magpie9	15 Jan 2005
To actually address the question asked~ I read with several decks, and the meanings of a specific card often vary from deck to deck. for instance: 7 Pentacles carries the meanings of assesment, disapointment in results, failure, patience,waiting for results, harvest, and more. Which one I read in a specific spread depends on the usual stuff, card position, circumstances, influencing cards--and the meaning the artist has illustrated. I like the variety of shades of meaning, and that is one of the reasons I like reading with a variety of decks. They expand my horizens, and help me see thing in new ways.

Sulis	15 Jan 2005
Like Magpie I prefer not to memorise meanings but to actually read the cards which are in front of me. There doesn't seem to be much point having more than one deck if you're going to read every card the same no matter what the image on that card is saying. Meanings differ from spread to spread and from question to question too. Love Sulis xx

Kiama	16 Jan 2005
I'm slightly different to Sulis and magpie9, in that I don't memorize meanings, but I don't always read the meanings based on the specific card in front of me. I just let past information I have gleaned about each card from the hundreds of different decks I've seen/used wash over me, and anything that strikes me as terribly important in this instance I use. So, whilst I find a new nuance of meaning in different decks, I don't always read that nuance. Blessings, Kiama

Keslynn	17 Jan 2005
I pretty much do the same thing as Kiama, but she said it way better than I could have. :) Kes

Red Emma	17 Jan 2005
I'm a piker in this group. I have only ten decks. And I frequently use most of them because ... each deck seems to look at my questions from a unique point of view. For most things I use only one deck, and I change them around now and again. Some of them tire easily and want some time off. But for big questions, like a family member having a severe problem, I might ask the same question of several decks because I want to see it from as many different angles as possible. It usually works.

bonnycat	18 Jan 2005
Hi funny this question. I have just been reading about this In 'tarot outside the box' by varerie sim. ans she address this chanllge by sugesting use different decks as comparitive in a reading. eg if you draw four of cups in a reading to get out other deck and veiw that four of cups as well and compair the meanings to come up with interperation.

The Different decks, different meanings?!?!? thread was originally posted on 26 Oct 2001 in the Using Tarot Cards board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Using Tarot Cards, or read more archived threads.