"sanitizing" decks for public readings

Yes.

Waiter, give that Logiatrix a banana.

I think my whole point was that, like the person who mentioned you can't ask a carpenter not to use a claw-hammer when you employ him, that you can't really ask a reader to pull out cards and use a crippled deck. Doing so would be as ridiculous as the selection of sanitised decks I offered.

Not unless they were going to say to the assembled multitudes: "We have a Tarot reader in the corner, but don't worry, they have pulled out all the bad cards {most of which weren't bad at all} out of their decks, so your lives will be cool and cruisy from now on!"

Real clever. Real professional.

Umbrae said:

No.

The Visconti decks did not have 22 majors. Yes it is a subject of discussion as to why - but they did not have 22 majors - two cards are missing from every extant collection. (Conspiracy Theory!!! They’ve been sanitized! roflmao)

Click to expand...

As far as historians can tell, the Visconti and other early decks were not used for divination.

As for the "no"--I disagree.

Debra said:

As far as historians can tell, the Visconti and other early decks were not used for divination.

Click to expand...

What are your sources for that?

Mine is Teofilo Folengo, who in 1527 wrote a book called "Chaos del Triperuno" in which two men and two women had their Tarocchi cards read. This was fifty or sixty years after the Vicsonti-Sforzas were painted. How much earlier do we have to go?

nisaba said:

Not unless they were going to say to the assembled multitudes: "We have a Tarot reader in the corner, but don't worry, they have pulled out all the bad cards {most of which weren't bad at all} out of their decks, so your lives will be cool and cruisy from now on!"

Real clever. Real professional.

Click to expand...

It is dishonest. The party-goers falsely believe they are hearing "what's in the cards" without knowing that the cards are censored--and that's ok? Because then they might want more readings? And woo-hoo, the reader gets rich! So that's ok?

Compare the scam readers who remove the GOOD cards to raise the odds of a scary reading and thus position themselves for further readings for the frightened client.

eta: Nisaba, I've got a shelf full of books and I don't have time to cite chapter and verse, but take a look at the History forum, and google tarot history forums for other sources.

Debra said:

It is dishonest. The party-goers falsely believe they are hearing "what's in the cards" without knowing that the cards are censored--and that's ok?

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Debra said:

eta: Nisaba, I've got a shelf full of books and I don't have time to cite chapter and verse, but take a look at the History forum, and google tarot history forums for other sources.

Click to expand...

Are those sources older than the 1537 text? Or maybe their authors just didn't know about it?

Moderating Note

This has been an incredible conversation, but I think it's run it's course. Thank you to all who have participated.