Switched Elemental Correspondences?

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 22 Sep 2004, and now archived in the Forum Library.

primaryreality	22 Sep 2004
I have a question about decks in which the cards' creator has assigned different elemental correspondences to the cards than the "traditional" ones, for whatever reason. I am using the Universal Waite and the Nigel Jackson decks for most of my readings, but in the Nigel Jackson deck the suit of swords is Fire, and the suit of staves (wands) is Air, the opposite of most RWS-style decks. So what I'm wondering is, when reading with such a deck, is it important to adhere to the deck creator's assignment of elements, or would most of you simply go ahead and use the traditional ones, or whatever ones you are most comfortable with? I drew an Ace of Staves this morning, but I'm wondering I should see it as effectively being the same in meaning as the Ace of Swords. My inclination is to disregard the switched meanings and read it like any other RWS deck, but I'd like any second opinions or other views people might have. I got my NJ deck used, and don't have the accompanying book, so if the clarification is there, I'm lacking it. I really love this deck, but this switch confuses me.

Fulgour	22 Sep 2004
Nigel's deck is like a gift, a precious keepsake to cherish. Jackson, however, was mostly focused on the Majors. Most of this is explained in the book, with his philosophy. I can usually get around the fiery Swords by remembering that he chose this as the way he wanted to create his deck, and ~ the images can be easily 'corrected' by squinting... Jackson has mainly followed the Colman Smith Tarot pips.

Fulgour	22 Sep 2004
from Renaissance Astrology: An Illuminationist and Hermeticist in the Transcendent Tradition, Nigel has been involved for over 20 years in expressing the symbolic 'language of the gods' through his visual art which he views as an initiatory 'alchemy of the imagination.' Nigel Jackson Talisman Images

RedMaple	22 Sep 2004
I just traded for a Nigel Jackson deck, also. There doesn't seem to be any justification for the change of elements, though I have seen it in other decks as well. There are several systems of correspondences in different magic traditions, from what I understand. The one I am used to is the one that most RWS decks use. When I first get a deck, I lay the deck out with the Majors at center, the Swords (air) in the East, the Wands (fire) in the South, the Cups (water) in the West, the Pentacles (earth) in the North. This seems to ground the deck for me, and I am always reading from this sacred circle. This was a little dissonant with the Jackson deck. It will be interesting to see how it sorts itself out. It seems to me that the important thing is to be consistent. Find the way that works best and then stay with it. Then trust to the cards and your own subconscious to sort it out. For me, it makes sense that wands (staves) are fire -- they contain fire, they burn. I can see swords as being forged in the flame, but for me they are the sharp edge of intellect, which is air for me. It is hard for me to see wands as air, but Jackson portrays them as arrows, so I guess he sees them as traveling through the air? I guess it's clear for me that the correspondences I am at home with will probably be what I stay with. But fire and air go together -- I can see the swords as fiery air, the arrows as fire going through air, which may make a subtle difference in the readings. Passionate thought, thoughtful passion?

jmd	23 Sep 2004
In many ways, I find it a little regretful that so many decks have purposefully incorporated elemental attributions in the suits, whether it be my personal preference for what I consider the more sensible Sword = Fire attribution or its various possible 'switched' elemental correspondence (to Air with Golden Dawn derivatives, or to Water in, for example, the Spanish Esoterico, or to Earth in yet others). But to return to primaryreality's seemingly main question, 'is it important to adhere to the deck creator's assignment of elements, or would most of you simply go ahead and use the traditional ones, or whatever ones you are most comfortable with?' my first suggestion is to look carefully at the depiction as given and see what emerges - ie, not attempt to impose on the image as given pre-determined pre-learned meaning. As an example, if I use a Waite/Colman-Smith (WCS) deck (in some situations, this may actually happen), and the ten of Cups comes through, then I will allow the image to slowly direct the unfolding of the 'story' it is to impart. As this unfolds, of course other aspects may indeed come in, and in this case, the Ten of Coupes may also become of significance. In the case you mention, then, I would suggest allowing for the card to first speak as it appears, and then, as a narrative begins to unfold, your background knowledge and views perhaps formed by depictions from another deck (such as the WCS) may also become narrated.

Fulgour	23 Sep 2004
Quote: Originally posted by jmd In many ways, I find it a little regretful that so many decks have purposefully incorporated elemental attributions in the suits, whether it be my personal preference for what I consider the more sensible Sword = Fire attribution or its various possible 'switched' elemental correspondence (to Air with Golden Dawn derivatives, or to Water in, for example, the Spanish Esoterico, or to Earth in yet others). Although I am (probably) never going to be able to consider Swords = Fire for my intuitive attribution of this Tarot suit, I am interested to learn more about why you consider there was a 'switch' at some point, and by Victorian magicians... Spanish School correspondences give us Cups as Air and Swords as Water, matching Briah-Yetzirah attributions, but from whence cometh fiery significations for Swords? :SL

RedMaple	23 Sep 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Fulgour Spanish School correspondences give us Cups as Air and Swords as Water, matching Briah-Yetzirah attributions, but from whence cometh fiery significations for Swords? :SL The Spanish correspondences you mention seem so counter-intuitive, I don't see how they can be useful. If they come, as you say, from the Briah-Yetzirah attributions, this would argue against the Kabbala-Tarot correspondence in this instance. I think it often has validity, but also, it is often forced.

jmd	24 Sep 2004
I personally do not consider that there ever was a 'switch' (hence my reason for the quotation marks - I was rather using the expression from the title of this thread). There are, rather, various views as to what possible correspondences may be made between suit and element. One 'tradition' suggests that Fire and Swords seem to better coincide, another suggests the suit better suits Air, another Water, and another Earth. I do not even personally consider these properly various full-blown 'traditions', but rather adaptations by various individuals who work in similar ways (I suppose one may argue that this forms the basis of a 'tradition'). Kabalistically, it makes as much sense to link Swords to any of the elements, and each may be argued for. In terms of Fire, one need go no further than the depth of Genesis and the expulsion from the Garden of Eden. The allocation to Swords and Water does seem, in some ways, to be 'counter-intuitive' - in the sense that it seems to go against the grain of commonly accepted attributions - yet even there there is common-sensical insight to the attribution. Personally, however, I prefer to reflect on the implements as they are, without primarily allocating any elemental attribution.

magpie9	24 Sep 2004
*AHEM* I have this deck and read with it frequently. I have/have had a number of decks with fire and air reversed and have found that I can read fine and cope with the elemental reversal if it isn't too pushy. I successfully ignore it in this deck, but (for instance) was unable to do so in the "shapeshifter" deck. As to the burning question of WHY, I had always thought it was a European convention--french decks did it that one way, english another, Italian did it any way they pleased. So of course it turns out out be yet another numerolical/GD/Wirth/Kabalistic pil-pul area to squabble about. My deck's righter than your deck, la la la . I, of course, do not mean this in an insulting way. Please do not turn on me and render my fat for printing ink. I think it's a wonderfull thing, how so many people can have so many historicaly supported takes on all the tiny details of tarot, and still agree that whatever else Tarot is, it is a fine and good thing. Perhaps "squabble" was an ill-chosen word. I'm sure I meant "discourse" or "discuss". Pil-pul, for those unfamiliar with the term, is the Hebrew or Yiddish (who remembers? :rolleyes: ) term for the passionate give and take engaged in by talmudists over each and every teeny-tiny-dot-and-tittle little point and/or possible variation in meaning of a word or phrase in the Talmud. This of course, includes being able to quote references for every point you make, and, prefferbly, references for those references. And then some more references. A paragraph of the Talmud can take days to get through in this fashion. Which keeps the Talmudists out from underfoot in the house, which is not altogether a bad thing. In Jewish tradition, the Kabbalah could only be studied my married men of at least 30 years of age. It was felt that it would drive single younger men insane. Had the Rabbis of yore considered the possibility of, say, Madonna taking up Kabballah, they would have as one. So. I say read it any way you want to, it's your deck and your reading, and do what works for you. Let the tarot rabbi's work it out for temselves, they always can, given enough time. :D * My credentials: Ex-secretery to a Rabbi, Hebrew Congregatinal secretary; Intreped Committee woman; Hebrew Sunday School School teacher; Mother of 3 Bat Mitzvahs; tarot reader for 40 years. And no, I can't spell in any langauge. :D ;) }) :smoker:

RedMaple	24 Sep 2004
Magpie 9 You are so right. I can't believe I get so pompous about this stuff. Thanks for making me laugh at myself. RedMaple

magpie9	24 Sep 2004
;)

Fulgour	25 Sep 2004
Quote: Originally posted by jmd Kabalistically, it makes as much sense to link Swords to any of the elements, and each may be argued for. In terms of Fire, one need go no further than the depth of Genesis and the expulsion from the Garden of Eden. There are no "Swords" in the Kabbalah though ~ and the Bible isn't Tarot. I have the feeling Nigel Jackson leans a little toward something like Wicca.

jmd	25 Sep 2004
How one looks at the Kabalah may suggest that there are indeed no 'swords' therein - though of course that Flaming Sword 'which keeps the way to the Tree of Life' is also viewed by some as integral to Kabalistic consideration (as is the whole Torah, of course). There is also another text which is generally considered (though not by all) to form part of the Hekhalot literature - a group of texts again intimately connected to Kabalah, at least in the eyes of many: The Sword of Moses. Of course, neither of these forms directly any direct relation to Tarot, any more than the four elements do.

Fulgour	25 Sep 2004
In his book The Nigel Jackson Tarot the artist cum author proposes the 4 alchemical elements, 4 cardinal directions, 4 temperaments, 4 elemental triplicities of the zodiac and "so forth." He terms The Ace of Swords the Monad of Fire. There is no reference to Kabbalah in his Glossary, K Q or C. * Tarot Card Ace and Moses (sans horns)

The Switched Elemental Correspondences? thread was originally posted on 22 Sep 2004 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.