New Book on Marseille Tarot by Camelia Elias

Elias refers a couple of times to her Middle European ancestors in the same breath that she's talking about the "cunning folk" approach to cards, so she might have been attempting to describe a generic order of natural wisdom, but - considering the sophisticated tone of the rest of the book - it struck a dull note for me. That said, in her long-ago website (now consigned to the Wayback Machine), Dawn Jackson also used the word "cunning" to refer to innate ways of knowing (especially in relation to herbalism), so perhaps the suggested association between Elias' "cunning folk" method and Hedgewytchery are not far off the mark. I was glad to see that Elias credits Jackson for being a formative influence on her own methods, though (for me) that section of her book was not its high point.

For those who wish to read Jackson's work directly, it is still available as a three-part tutorial here: http://web.archive.org/web/20080210083822/http://www.hedgewytchery.com/cartomancy.html.

Regarding the use of the term "cunning-folk," Camelia has been influenced by the book "Cunning-Folk and Familiar Spirits: Shamanistic Visionary Traditions in Early Modern British Witchcraft and Magic" by Emma Whitby. It is listed in the bibliography of her Tarot book, and I've heard her mention this book in a podcast she did on folk magic. So there's a specificity to her use of this term. The term itself does have an academic aura (Whitby is a fellow at University of Exeter) though Whitby likely stumbled on it herself during her researches into source documents.

I haven't read the Whitby book, but I believe Camelia uses the term to make a distinction between the high magic of initiates versus the magical practices of "ordinary" unschooled country people. Perhaps the definition isn't brought out sufficiently in Camelia's writing, since it seems to have tripped up several readers.

Camelia often seems to invoke the term to highlight using common sense in interpreting the cards, like practical folk might do, rather than forcing an interpretation based on a system of correspondences or meanings.

surpeti said:

Camelia often seems to invoke the term to highlight using common sense in interpreting the cards, like practical folk might do, rather than forcing an interpretation based on a system of correspondences or meanings.

Click to expand...

Yes, I did get that sense out of what I read in her book. Since I'm still wrestling with how to handle the pips, when I open that particular channel I mostly get "white noise." I'm looking for something substantive but not fragmentary and disjointed, requiring assembly. I guess I'm after some kind of "normative" principle I can filter them through in a more visionary way.

Reading this book now and I am really glad I bought it. it's a book that has me scribbling in the margins and feeling clever as well as thinking that 'duh, why didn't i think of that earlier'

I love the 3 card readings she gives for examples.

Even if you never want to look at a TdM deck this is a good book for learning tarot by simply looking at the images.

I simply cannot praise it high enough!

Would this be a good book for a novice Marseille student to read?

Yes, very good!

Especially the example readings.

jema said:

Yes, very good!

Especially the example readings.

Click to expand...

Thanks. It's on its way

I've been reading more of her blog, as I've been on the fence between getting this and Holistic Tarot. I think this one is going to win. I like her straight talkin'

I'm really enjoying this book so far. These sentences have stayed with me...

"The cards tell you what you already know and what you don't know. As soon as you see the relation between knowing and not knowing articulated in images, you get infinitely smarter." pp. 20

I'm not sure about getting infinitely smarter but what this does for me is allow me to see that the place between knowing and not knowing is the place of real potential, of mystery, of infinite possibility. And that is a powerful and visceral place to locate and then navigate.

The layout of this book is lovely. Lots of space on the page, a clean font, images that are given the time to sink in. There is a lot of useful information packed into this book but it doesn't feel dense, there's lots of breathing space. I'm not too far along with it yet but so far I'm very much enjoying her tone which I find to be both sensual and blunt, a fascinating combination. Kind of like the Marseille deck itself.

Nice observations, Madrigal. I feel much the way you do, and agree with your description of her tone.

I've been reading this an enjoying it also. My reaction to Elias' writing is all over the place: I find her blunt, straightforward, clear & practical, but also sometimes incomprehensible & baffling. I don't always come to the same conclusions she does with her three card readings (or come anywhere near them at all), but I like her general approach and process.

She's an interesting mix in that she is both a believer and non-believer in the cards. They are true, they tell stories, and yet why think we will achieve accuracy? Flipping through her blog I see more of the same. A magical life and behavior but also grounded expectations, near-materialism, and a lack of fanciful woo. She's hard to peg down. Such an odd blend, but I can identify with it to some extent, so she keeps me interested.