Are all tarot decks valid?

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 23 Dec 2004, and now archived in the Forum Library.

marinecomm	23 Dec 2004
I wanted to start this as a poll, but couldn't find out how to do it. Regardless, I was curious. With all the different tarot decks out there, are all of them valid to use? Excluding all the decks that were made in humor like the Hello Kitty deck, etc. and the different oracle decks like the I-Ching deck. I have read the Marseille deck has two particular cards in certain postions whereas the Crowley-Toth has the same two cards in different positions. I have the Pythagorean deck which has the Major Arcana ordered based on pythagorean numerology. This ordering system happens to be different than most. I am currently waiting on one deck that supposedly has restored the order of the Major Arcana to that of the oldest recorded ordering system. Through research I have found out that there were at least three ordering systems which are the oldest recorded. I have seen the Goddess deck where all the images on the cards are female. You can see what I am getting at.

April	23 Dec 2004
I'm sure several will disagree with me here, but I beleive that every deck is valid. Including the Hello Tarot and other humorous and whimsical decks. The important thing in a deck to me is if I can read with it. There are certain themes and artistic styles that just don't appeal to me, so I wouldn't be able to use a deck based on them. But that doesn't mean that somebody else won't find it usefull. There are those who beleive that there is one "true Tarot" or that anything after a certain date is no longer a real Tarot deck. I still don't understand it although it's been explained several times (doing a search on these forums will lead you to, not just two, but several opinions). It's an ongoing argument, one which I beleive the many sides will never come together on, but that's fine with me. If you like a deck, use it and don't let anyone tell you that you shouldn't. That being said, I do think it's important that we become aware of the history behind Tarot and examine the ancestors of our modern decks. Instead of asking, "Is this deck valid?" maybe we should ask, "Are the readings that COME FROM this deck valid?" But sometimes that's just me. Peace, April

Rosanne	23 Dec 2004
I am in full agreement with April On the validity of all Decks. Each Tarot pack, its reader and their interpratation is a unique combination. Through that combination we gain access to a deeper understanding of ourselves and the people, events etc involved in our lives. I love the research into the history of Tarot, I love all the different art involved and the humour. I personally can't read with every Deck I own; for some or other reason the images don't make a connection with me. That does not invalidate the Cards, it invalidates my reading of them. Regards Rosanne

wandking	23 Dec 2004
What I find more intriguing is the interest in finding examples of the early ordering of Trump cards, in Tarot. One good example of Renaissance numbering comes from Sermones De Ludo Cum Aliis, called the Steele Sermon, which condemns Tarot for religious symbolism. It lists the majors like this: 1. El bagatella (The Magician – 1 or juggler) 2. Imperatrix (The Empress – 3) 3. Impreator (The Emperor – 4) 4. La papessa (The High Priestess – 2 or popess) 5. El papa (The Hierophant – 5 or Pope) 6. La temperentia (Temperance – 14) 7. L’amore (The Lovers – 6 or love) 8. Lo caro (The Chariot – 7 or car) 9. La forteza (Strength – 8) 10. La rota (Wheel of Fortune – 10 or the wheel) 11. El gobo (The Hermit – 9 or Father Time) 12. Lo impichato (The Hanged Man – 12) 13. La morte (Death – 13) 14. El deavolo (The Devil – 15) 15. La sagetta (The Tower – 16 or arrow) 16. La stella (The Star – 17) 17. La luna (The Moon – 18) 18. El sole (The Sun – 19) 19. Lo Angelo (Judgement – 20 or the angel) 20. La justicia (Justice – 11) 21. El mondo (The World – 21) 22. El motto (The Fool – 0 or madman

marinecomm	23 Dec 2004
Wandking, the deck I mentioned that I am waiting for in the mail is De Tarot in De Herstelde Orde (Tarot of the Restored Order). The author has ordered the Major Arcana according to the Steele Sermon.

jmd	24 Dec 2004
The concept of 'validity' is probably related more to what purpose or usage the deck is to be put. Personally, I consider all decks to have their own internal 'validity' - ie, they are valued and considered for what they bring and what they reflect (hence also my opening of the earlier thread titled something like 'The Instrument is its own Teacher'). The Steele Sermon may or may not properly reflect an ordering used in early days for gaming purposes. Also, and though there is indeed variation across some of the early decks in terms of their numbering, the earliest extant decks (such as the hand-painted Visconti) bear no numbers on their Atouts, rendering the specific order to be somewhat surmised by other means. Does Tarot have an intrinsic specific ordering? Certainly most specific decks do, and the variation between the Marseille and the WCS is the most common divergence noted. The validity of each deck, however, probably needs to be assessed in terms of whether one wishes to work with particular types of spiritual impulse and reflective imagery.

firemaiden	24 Dec 2004
I like what jmd said - each deck has its own validity, according to its own criteria. In a similar vein, each animal in the animal kindgom is precisely as intelligent as it needs to be in order to be that animal. We have often asserted mankind is the most intelligent species - however, we would fail miserably, I am sure, at being a cat, if put to the test, or at being a dog, or even at being a fly. By the same token, only the Marseille decks are Marseille decks, and only RWS clones are RWS clones, and only the Thoth is the Thoth... see where I'm going? Of course, there is validity, and then there is legitimacy. hmmm... what's the difference?

wandking	24 Dec 2004
The Steele, surmon likely reflects numbering on one Tarot deck from that period. Any serious research into the meager evidence of early numbering also reveals the Rosenwald Sheet, dated around 1500 CE, which ascribes numbers identical to modern Major Arcana to the first five images. Although numbering problems surface later in the printing project, the wood-block printed sheet likely provides a good example of another style of typical cards of that time.

kwaw	24 Dec 2004
wandking wrote: What I find more intriguing is the interest in finding examples of the early ordering of Trump cards, in Tarot. One good example of Renaissance numbering comes from Sermones De Ludo Cum Aliis, called the Steele Sermon, which condemns Tarot for religious symbolism. It lists the majors like this: 1. El bagatella (The Magician – 1 or juggler) 2. Imperatrix (The Empress – 3) 3. Impreator (The Emperor – 4) 4. La papessa (The High Priestess – 2 or popess) 5. El papa (The Hierophant – 5 or Pope) 6. La temperentia (Temperance – 14) 7. L’amore (The Lovers – 6 or love) 8. Lo caro (The Chariot – 7 or car) 9. La forteza (Strength – 8) 10. La rota (Wheel of Fortune – 10 or the wheel) 11. El gobo (The Hermit – 9 or Father Time) 12. Lo impichato (The Hanged Man – 12) 13. La morte (Death – 13) 14. El deavolo (The Devil – 15) 15. La sagetta (The Tower – 16 or arrow) 16. La stella (The Star – 17) 17. La luna (The Moon – 18) 18. El sole (The Sun – 19) 19. Lo Angelo (Judgement – 20 or the angel) 20. La justicia (Justice – 11) 21. El mondo (The World – 21) 22. El motto (The Fool – 0 or madman From the version i've seen, though El Motto is listed last, it is numbered '0' not '22'. Kwaw

wandking	24 Dec 2004
The Fool is listed last on the original manuscript but I don't think any number was ascribed to the card, certainly not a zero. In my records I had turned auto-numbering in a word document. do you have a link that shows a close up of that section that actually goes past number 21 and shows The Fool bearing a zero?

wandking	24 Dec 2004
The only ref. I can find is in Kaplan Vol 2 and he specifically states "ending with 22, el matto

kwaw	24 Dec 2004
wandking wrote: The only ref. I can find is in Kaplan Vol 2 and he specifically states "ending with 22, el matto Possibly Kaplan's copy of the script was unreadable in parts [his reproduction of it is] and he assumed 22 becaused it was positioned last. Kwaw

kwaw	24 Dec 2004
A transcript of the text of the Steele Sermon can be found here: http://www.tarock.info/steele.htm The list is in the last paragraph, the fool is numbered '0' but it is listed last, in 22nd place. The full paragraph reads: Quote: Primus dicitur El bagatella (et est omnium inferior). 2, Imperatrix. 3, Imperator. 4, La papessa (O miseri quod negat Christiana fides). 5, El papa (O pontifex cur, &c. qui debet omni sanctitate polere, et isti ribaldi faciunt ipsorum capitaneum). 6, La temperantia. 7, L'amore. 8, Lo caro triumphale (vel mundus parvus). 9, La forteza. 10, La rotta (id est regno, regnavi, sum sine regno). 11, El gobbo. 12, Lo impichato. 13, La morte. 14, El diavolo. 15, La sagitta. 16, La stella. 17, La luna. 18, El sole. 19, Lo angelo. 20, La justicia. 21, El mondo (cioe Dio Padre). 0, El matto sie nulla (nisi velint). End quote. As well as being numbered '0' according to this transcript of the sermon it is also called: "El matto sine nulla (sini velint). The Fool is a "nulla" (without qualities of its own, an empty-head). 'Nulla' also has a specific mathematical meaning, which can be found from at least fibonaaci on [if not earlier]. In mathematics a 'nulla' is a figure that in any operation between two numbers leaves the other number unchanged. In basic arithmetic there are two 'nulla', and they are 1 and 0. Zero in operations of addition and subraction, 'one' in operations of multiplication and division. Kwaw

Seed Crystal	24 Dec 2004
Are all decks valid? Is the "magic" in the pattern, or the pattern maker, or the pattern user/perceiver? Yes. And Tarot decks are all just cardboard and inks. There's an old Star Trek concept (ok, stop groaning) which suggests ultimate beauty and truth are expressed in the concept IDIC: Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.

wandking	24 Dec 2004
that site offers some very specific references that lead to the Society of Antiquaries of London. They provide a search-engine that revealed nothing related to the references given at the site you recommended. Before assuming that Kaplan got it wrong and some website has better info, you might want to follow up on the references that the site you mentioned offers... check the Society of Antiquaries of London @ http://sal.ads.ahds.ac.uk/webvoy.htm. It is certainly an intriguing subject, which I haven't closed the book on yet.

kyuri	24 Dec 2004
Going along with what April said, I don't think it matters whether or not a deck is silly as long as it's readable. As long as I feel a sort of connection with a deck, even bizarre/funny imagery or unusual meanings can facillitate understanding. One time, as a joke, my friend made a deck solely based on internet smiley faces and the like. It was incredibly amusing (and idiotic), but at the same time, surprisingly accurate. And seeing as how they used to use things like sheep entrails for divination, I have to say that Hello Kitty tarot is really an improvement.

kwaw	24 Dec 2004
wandking wrote: that site offers some very specific references that lead to the Society of Antiquaries of London. They provide a search-engine that revealed nothing related to the references given at the site you recommended. Before assuming that Kaplan got it wrong and some website has better info, you might want to follow up on the references that the site you mentioned offers... check the Society of Antiquaries of London @ http://sal.ads.ahds.ac.uk/webvoy.htm . It is certainly an intriguing subject, which I haven't closed the book on yet. I do not assume that Kaplan got it wrong, nor that the other secondary source I gave got it right, I merely speculated as to how Kaplan may have made a mistake, if indeed he deed [from the point of view that honouring kaplans integrity i assume if he is mistaken it would be an error rather that intentional deceit or misdirection]. They are both secondary sources and as I do not have access to the original I do not know which is correct, if either, only that they conflict with each other. I have brought the same subject up here before asking if anyone had information on the original source that would show which, if either, is correct. So far I have recieved no answer to that question, and continue within my own resources to search for an answer for myself. It is possible that both are wrong, that it is listed last but is neither listed as 22 or 0, but as is more probable that it is unnumbered. As you yourself are quoting from a secondary source as if it was an authority, I thought you should know that your source may be mistaken [you said the only reference you had was kaplan] and needs to be qualified as such until further research proves otherwise, and to point out to that this common claim [that matto is numbered 22 in the steele sermon, for which kaplan is the common authority] is at present open to question. Kwaw

wandking	24 Dec 2004
Indeed, both are secondary, however, that website listed it's source as the Society of Antiquaries of London, which offered several entries by Robert Steel. The entry it mentions is simply not in the archives at that society. I believe if Kaplan had "made a mistake" many would have pointed it out by now. His books have been read by millions. I have seen a few instances where people actually prove Kaplan was mistaken on certain minor topics. Early numbering for The Fool, is certainly not a minor topic. It's debated all over the web and has been pondered by every leading Tarot writer since de Geblen. Please understand I am working on a book and refuse to submit anything in print that refutes a modern-day 500 hundred pound gorilla on Tarot with a website that offers an erroneous reference to a highly respected historical order. If the Society of Antiquaries had substantiated that site you offered my approach would differ greatly. I want to thank you for your postings and i hope you'll keep me informed on your research. I don't think Kaplan is some new Messiah of Tarot, but his work is highly respected.

kwaw	24 Dec 2004
Quote: from wandking ;Indeed, both are secondary, however, that website listed it's source as the Society of Antiquaries of London, which offered several entries by Robert Steel. The entry it mentions is simply not in the archives at that society. It certainly is not in the electronic/internet accessible archives of the library. I have written to the head librarian with an enquiry, and will let you know of any answer I receive. BTW: what references does Kaplan give as his source? Quote: Please understand I am working on a book and refuse to submit anything in print that refutes a modern-day 500 hundred pound gorilla on Tarot with a website that offers an erroneous reference to a highly respected historical order. If the Society of Antiquaries had substantiated that site you offered my approach would differ greatly. I want to thank you for your postings and i hope you'll keep me informed on your research. I don't think Kaplan is some new Messiah of Tarot, but his work is highly respected. If you are indeed working on a book then it would be refreshing to find that one in a million that incorporates some original research - speculation upon, or even worse mere repetition of, secondary sources is already well covered and certainly not one for which I personally would spend hard earned money on. Kwaw

wandking	24 Dec 2004
He actually references himself, in Vol 1 where he has reproduced the entire sermon. I see clear numbering of the first 21 trumps. As you said the final entry isn't as legible and remains somewhat detached from the rest of the trump listing. Judging from this full-page example of the actual hand-written sermon, Kaplan had access to the full-sized original at some point. In a full-sized version, these details would be a great deal more obvious. BTW, I am very glad you wrote that society. I look forward to their reply and please keep me posted on any other early examples of numbering you find for our elusive mad-man.

SunChariot	25 Dec 2004
marinecomm wrote: I wanted to start this as a poll, but couldn't find out how to do it. Regardless, I was curious. With all the different tarot decks out there, are all of them valid to use? Excluding all the decks that were made in humor like the Hello Kitty deck, etc. and the different oracle decks like the I-Ching deck. I have read the Marseille deck has two particular cards in certain postions whereas the Crowley-Toth has the same two cards in different positions. I have the Pythagorean deck which has the Major Arcana ordered based on pythagorean numerology. This ordering system happens to be different than most. I am currently waiting on one deck that supposedly has restored the order of the Major Arcana to that of the oldest recorded ordering system. Through research I have found out that there were at least three ordering systems which are the oldest recorded. I have seen the Goddess deck where all the images on the cards are female. You can see what I am getting at. I think what makes a deck "valid" is how well you connect with it and the depth and validity of the answers you get from it, not the way it is numbered or designed. How well your unconscious is able to connect with it. As we are all individuals and each of us have preferences for certain decks, I would imagine that every deck out there would be valid for certain people and not for others. If it works for you it is valid. There's my opinion, Bar

Tarot Sparrow	25 Dec 2004
Anything is a valid spiritual tool if even one person can put it to good use.

Rosanne	26 Dec 2004
Right on Dead Star, it does validate a tool if only one person can use it. Short, sweet and perfect reply.

marinecomm	26 Dec 2004
Well, that answers my question. Seems like everyone is unanimous on the subject. I have to admit that I agree with everones' post here.

kwaw	14 Jan 2005
wandking wrote: Judging from this full-page example of the actual hand-written sermon, Kaplan had access to the full-sized original at some point. In a full-sized version, these details would be a great deal more obvious. There is now also a transcript of the relevant section and link to the full text at http://trionfi.com/0/e1/17/ However the accuracy of this transcript remains to be confirmed or refuted. From what I can make out from the manuscript reproduced in Kaplan, the text only says that "there are in fact 21 triumphs, being 21 steps into the depths of hell", and goes on to list 21 and does not make mention of 'ill matto' at all. Kwaw

mzoltarp	14 Jan 2005
I think all decks are valid IF they resonate well with people who read with them. That said, there are a number of decks that I think are total garbage because I find them off-putting. Those decks are invalid TO ME, but I know others who read with them and swear by them. Maybe I will be pilloried for being so blunt, but I will say that if someone wanted to read for me using a deck like the Hello Kitty one, I would politely decline. As a person being read, I have on rare ocasion said "no thank you" to people who wanted to read for me using a deck that I cannot stand. Just as the reader has to connect with a deck, I also think that a certain level of connection/trust has to come from the person being read vis a vis the deck.

all78degrees	14 Jan 2005
IMHO what makes a deck readable/valid is what meaning you give to the cards, your meanings might come from the illustrations, an author, your own ideas, the cards after all are just that. Card. ;) gav.

Diana	14 Jan 2005
All Tarot decks are equally valid. (But some are more equally valid than others.)

Fudugazi	14 Jan 2005
Diana wrote: All Tarot decks are equally valid. (But some are more equally valid than others.) OK Napoleon ;)

tarotbear	15 Jan 2005
IMHO a lot of tarot decks are junk, but that does NOT make them invalid - only invalid to me in that I would not be able to use them because their content is too silly and breaks my concentration, or too boring and that is almost as bad. This is not to say that there aren't a few decks out there that were created strictly to make a buck for the artist or creator. What I feel what makes a deck 'valid' is that it is universal enough to be able to be used by a large percent of the population.

RedMaple	16 Jan 2005
Yes, but how do we count that population? All the people alive at a particular moment? Or through history? My point being,that we don't know which new decks will still be used and easily read by future generations. I like to read by the images. I do feel it is a little disconcerting when a tarot deck has images that have no discernible connection with the meaning stated by the author, or to any of the main Tarot traditions. I don't think that invalidates the deck, but it makes it a bad or flawed deck, in my opinion.

Fudugazi	16 Jan 2005
And where is that population? In Europe? In France? in England? In Finland? In Papua New Guinea? In Dacca? In Johannesburg? In Los Angeles? In South Central LA, in Bel Air? There are very few universal decks out there, I would say.

Kiama	16 Jan 2005
tarotbear wrote: IMHO a lot of tarot decks are junk, but that does NOT make them invalid - only invalid to me in that I would not be able to use them because their content is too silly and breaks my concentration, or too boring and that is almost as bad. Nicely said, tarotbear! In my opinion, I've seen the future and people's lives read in lolly sticks, soil, pebbles, bones, sauce packets, beer foam, and chocolates. So I think you can use any Tarot deck to read. If you really put your mind to it. But then again, I agree with tarotbear that some decks are more junk than others, but then again this can be in the eye of the beholder. One day, maybe, I will challenge myself. Give me any deck, and I will read with it. I wonder if it would work...? Blessings, Kiama

Cerulean	16 Jan 2005
The Game of Tarot From Ferarra to Salt Lake City Michael Dummett with assistance of Sylvia Mann copyright 1980, first published by Gerald Duckworth and Co., Ltd The Old Piano Factory 43 Gloucester Crescent, London NW1 The game was already mentioned in the sermon of about 1470 quoted by Robert Steele, and it was forbidden in Bergamo in 1491; there are several sixteenth century references to it. (50) R. Steele, 'A notice of the Ludus Triumphorum', Archaeologia, vo. LVIII. 1900, pp. 189-200, contains the text of the sermon on gambling; it cites crica as ludus trium cartularum (a game of three cards), and goes on to say that ludit hoc ludo dondo cartulas a 3 a 3 (one plays this game, dealing the cards in threes). For the Bergamo edict, see W.L. Schreiber, Die altesten Spielkarten, Strasbourg, 1937, p. 79. In the sixteenth century it was referred to by Francesco Berni in 1526 in his Capitolo della Primiera, by Cardano in his book De ludo alearum, by Garzoni in 1585 in his Piazza universale and by John Florio in his dictionary of 1598. Berni also mentions it in his version of Boiardo's Orlando Innamorato, Book 3, Canto 6, Stanza 53: Sebran Costor due giocartor' di criccia Ch'abbian il punto tutto in bastoni.* The punto is like the point in Piquet (that player wins who has the most cards in one suit) and increases the liklihood that the game is identifical with Gleek or Glic. *Cerulean Mari's note: I do not have Berni's rewrite of the Orlando Innamorato: the modern Charles Stanley Ross translation from the original has only in the references a sword contest, no mention of staves or points at all. Boiardo died in 1492 and Berni's Tuscan translation was in the later 1500s. This is for reference--perhaps someone should start a new thread on the Steele sermon references to discuss their points further? It's not a bad thing to compare references and address questions regarding this often quoted bit.

The Are all tarot decks valid? thread was originally posted on 23 Dec 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.