Tips for reading with the Marseilles

[Moonbow]

I agree with much that Melanchollic has said and it is certainly an important point to make within this thread.

The first step that people new to using a Marseilles will hopefully try to do is to think of the Marseilles deck in a different way to other decks that they may have been used to. Its not going to help them if they make associations with other decks or to use applied layers that other people have suggested, and that generally means the image is all they have to go on, at first.

From there an understanding of the era of the decks themselves and the history of the time makes them more enjoyable and expands meanings for the cards, in time we each start to put our own layers and meanings on to them, usually through use and study. Where one person may introduce real life Kings and Queens from history to understand the Courts, another may choose a different method, perhaps adding their own personality types, or even people in their own lives. Some look at the pips with a Pythagorean eye and others may use Geometry or something more simple. These are all layers which the individual takes a preference on depending on their own interest and understanding.

[EnriqueEnriquez]

Originally Posted by Melanchollic

EMW Tillyard's Elizabethan World Picture

Arthur O. Lovejoy's The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea

CS Lewis' The Discarded Image. Yes that's the author of the Narnia series.

Patrick Harpur's The Philosopher's Secret Fire

Great list of titles.

EE

[mac22]

Originally Posted by le pendu

Hi Melanchollic,

As in introduction to learning how to read a Marseille, I stand by the idea that discarding past associations and looking at the cards with fresh eyes is a very good starting point.

Is it the only starting point or method of reading? I think I make it clear in most of my posts that there is no "right" way of reading these decks.

I try to encourage people to get intimate with the iconography and actually look at what is presented on the cards rather than instantly applying overlays such as "Queen of Swords = Air = Mental Activity = Person who is mentally active, perhaps too cold emotionally...blah blah blah"

Most students who do get involved eventually spend time researching and learning about the historical iconography and contexts, as so many other threads in this forum clearly demonstrate.

It's very good to see additional views on how to approach this study. I have no desire to come across as authoritarian, my intention is to encourage people to explore and fall in love with these old decks. Of course, there are numerous paths.

I certainly must agree with Le Pendu based on personal experience.

As a relative noobie to TdM [but not the Tarot] I took Le Pendu's & JMDs advice and resisted the urge to reach for a book. One of the best pieces of advice I ever took.

I met the Noblet with no preconceived ideas, notions or overlays.. It was an interesting & rewarding experience. I finally cracked thru the barrier that had kept me arms length from the TdM for over 20 yrs.

The deck now whispers, chimes, sings, talks to me & even occasionally dances for me. All because I chose to let go and let the Noblet show/teach me at its pace NOT MINE.

The very idea of a non-image minors had my knees knocking. But with JMDs fine lessons some time with the cards, ruminations, meditations & my journal.... non-image minors are just fine by me...and often provide more insight then their later imaged cousins.

Your mileage may vary, based on time, location & experience.


mac22

[mac22]

Originally Posted by Moonbow*

I agree with much that Melanchollic has said and it is certainly an important point to make within this thread.

The first step that people new to using a Marseilles will hopefully try to do is to think of the Marseilles deck in a different way to other decks that they may have been used to. Its not going to help them if they make associations with other decks or to use applied layers that other people have suggested, and that generally means the image is all they have to go on, at first.

From there an understanding of the era of the decks themselves and the history of the time makes them more enjoyable and expands meanings for the cards, in time we each start to put our own layers and meanings on to them, usually through use and study. Where one person may introduce real life Kings and Queens from history to understand the Courts, another may choose a different method, perhaps adding their own personality types, or even people in their own lives. Some look at the pips with a Pythagorean eye and others may use Geometry or something more simple. These are all layers which the individual takes a preference on depending on their own interest and understanding.

With my post to Le Pendu I didn't mean to say I quit reading books - I merely switched focus for a time instead of books on decks, interpretations & meanings I moved to the time the TdM came into being - the culture, customs, society, Church -- how memory, education, teaching, life, death & legacy were thought of..... It was a great learning curve....

Mac22

[Melanchollic]

-----

[Disa]

I've read every post in this thread and I just wanted to say thanks for all the great info here. You made the impossible seem possible, I may just attempt this deck after all...

Disa

[mac22]

Originally Posted by Disa

I've read every post in this thread and I just wanted to say thanks for all the great info here. You made the impossible seem possible, I may just attempt this deck after all...

Disa

The TdM deck is uncomplicated & unfettered if you let it.

mac22

[mac22]

Originally Posted by Melanchollic

"A deep balance in the Force achieved we have!!"

Agreed!

Mac22

[jmd]

I agree even with the apparent contradictions that are in this thread: there is a sense that the cards, to be more fully appreciated, need to be ever more deeply understood in the symbolic and allegorical context in which they arose (or at least were found in the 17th century - given that the manner in which they would have been understood in the 15th would again be somewhat different).

To 'put aside' allocated meaning is of course not to avoid the card's symbolic value, but rather, first and foremost, to see what the card presents. This is simply all too often difficult at first for some. Without even seeing the image actually presented, often due to presumed overlayed meanings that are certainly inconsistent with not only the period, but also perhaps even the given imagery (if given a chance to 'speak' of its own accord even refracted by the ravages of time), what chance would the card have of unveiling its earlier vantage point?

I think it is this aspect that is more generally claimed in setting aside presumptions in order to first observe.

There is also another aspect to this thread in terms of its title and general direction, in that in terms of reading, there is nothing that necessitates that it be viewed from a manner earlier intended, nor reflective of the manner in which a contemporary of Noblet may (perhaps) have used the cards for reading purposes.

Certainly the imagery has its own meaningful dimension, and such is rooted in a historical context that can only enrich our appreciation of the symbolic content and broaden the manner in which we can see the cards. Ultimately, however, in terms of reading, it needs to be transformed to meaningful narrative.

This does not negate any post above - on the contrary...

[stella01904]

Originally Posted by jmd

There is also another aspect to this thread in terms of its title and general direction, in that in terms of reading, there is nothing that necessitates that it be viewed from a manner earlier intended, nor reflective of the manner in which a contemporary of Noblet may (perhaps) have used the cards for reading purposes.

Certainly the imagery has its own meaningful dimension, and such is rooted in a historical context that can only enrich our appreciation of the symbolic content and broaden the manner in which we can see the cards. Ultimately, however, in terms of reading, it needs to be transformed to meaningful narrative.

This does not negate any post above - on the contrary...

Falling back on Joseph Campbell here:
When you think in historical terms: France, time period, the Church, etc. etc. you are reading the denotation.
When you think in terms of what these pictures allude to, the ideas that the makers used this set of available symbols to put across, you are reading the connotation.
The connotation is perennial and universal and not confined to the cultural and historical inflections. There are things, for instance, that dovetail nicely with Eastern ideas, whether the makers intended this or not. (Most likely not!)