Majors only?

[orczy]

After all, if the creator of the deck had wanted only 22 cards, why bother to draw up the rest of the 56? Plus, isn’t it kind of rude to dismantle someone’s creation and say ‘I prefer this part, I’ll not touch that which I do not like’?

Just wondering…

Well, I suppose it may be. I have never really thought of it in that way. The deck I use these days is the Oswald Wirth, which is the majors only, so I guess I am not being rude to his work.

I really do see the two parts as being quite distinct, and many people here have suggested as much by saying the majors are for "big" things, the minors "everyday" stuff.

Personally, I doubt the myriad of meanings being given to the minors. I know the whole Kabalah astrolgical idea makes sense with them, but that would mean I would have to agree with the Kabalah Tarot connection.

To me, the symbolism of the majors is clear, and really works for intuition and clairvoyance, whereas the minors seems to me to be a bit of a hodgepodge.

Any thoughts?

 

[NeXoRiouS]

Haha… yea, using Majors alone do at times presents a different story. Just like my signature says, be it a black or white cat, as long as it catches the rat, it is a good cat. Likewise, someone once saw me do a reading without reversals, he said this is wrong, it will not be accurate. I’m like ‘What?!’

It’s up to individual choice anyway.

However, I do feel irritated by people who insist that majors are ‘major events’ as compared to minors that are ‘trivial things’. It’s as good as saying certain things in life ain’t as important. What I perceive in this dimension we ‘exist’, everything is equal.

Well, it doesn’t really matter what methods we use to read, whether it works for intuition and clairvoyance, as long as at the end of the day we’re happy, that is enough.

 

[le pendu]

To me, the symbolism of the majors is clear, and really works for intuition and clairvoyance, whereas the minors seems to me to be a bit of a hodgepodge.

Any thoughts?

I agree with you that the historical evidence seems to indicate that the 22 were developed separately, and then added to a "regular" deck (with the addition of a fourth court card).

It's interesting to me because, before Waite and Crowley, no one can say with any actual authority what each of the cards mean, we have no little white book with the early decks. It's all opinion.

Once we move into modern decks, we have the systems by Waite and Crowley. They are the creators of the iconography that has become the standard for most every tarot deck made in the past 100 years. In this case, they have pretty much determined what the cards mean for most modern tarot decks. Personally, I'll use one of those decks when interested in using their system, but mostly turn to the old decks as I prefer the iconography and lack of layers of additional symbolism added by the later decks.

The freedom of using 22, especially with older decks, is that we are free to interpret the symbolism as it was actually passed on to us over hundreds of year. Of course, the courts offer much symbolism as well, and even the pips as many will argue.

best,
robert