meanings of the Death card

[Richard]

......We don't know, really. If the symbolism is universal, as I think, it's actually more probable to mean regeneration.

An image of the Grim Reaper doesn't look very regenerative to me. If regeneration were the primary meaning of Death, I seriously doubt that the card would feature such a grotesque image, which the artist Holbein used to illustrate the black death plague. Considering the dominance of Christianity during much of Tarot's history, if there were to be any suggestion of regeneration in the Death card, it surely would have been depicted somehow in the pre Golden Dawn historical decks. A skeleton is in no way suggestive of regeneration. It is up to the individual whether to overlay the death concept with transformative notions, but the card itself simply suggests death. Probably the Tarot originally was just a deck of playing cards anyhow.

 

[Maagi]

I think in historical terms that is nothing but new age revisionist anti-christian 'wishful thinking' (or baloney to give it its technical term) - the old 'origins and meanings lost in time' position is historical nonsense - but that is a subject for another (the history) forum should anyone want to explore it.

Hmmh, I still think it's a bit harsh to say something's baloney! Plus I study history at the Uni, I know that we don't know a lot about the old times, history is all about interpretting interpretations.

What I was suggesting here, was that none of us can state knowing the only original meaning and truth behind these cards.... yeah, maybe they were playing cards. Yeah, maybe Death was originally just what it implies - death. Who knows? But the fact that these cards are still in such value and inspire people all over the world, tells that there's something universal in them.

But hey, these are opinions! I just hope nothing's considered baloney, really....

 

[kwaw]

Hmmh, I still think it's a bit harsh to say something's baloney! Plus I study history at the Uni,

Does that make baloney a Uni (versal) ?

I just hope nothing's considered baloney, really....

Me too!
With the exception of baloney of course . . .
(no matter how thinly sliced)

 

[Grizabella]

You know, just as the pieces of a junk oracle were something else at one time (a button becomes something besides a button in interpretation, for instance), the Tarot was undoubtedly something else at the beginning. It was a game. But the way it's used now by most of us, it's not a game anymore the way it was to begin with. So somebody way back when who used it to tell fortunes decided what the "meaning" of each of the cards was and it's just been parrotted and passed down ever since. People who don't like a certain meaning change it and then that catches on eventually, too, like those who say Death doesn't mean death so pretty soon the books started reflecting that.

Basically, what a card means is just whatever it means to you, never mind what it means to someone else or what it means in a book.

 

[Maagi]

You know, just as the pieces of a junk oracle were something else at one time (a button becomes something besides a button in interpretation, for instance), the Tarot was undoubtedly something else at the beginning. It was a game. But the way it's used now by most of us, it's not a game anymore the way it was to begin with. So somebody way back when who used it to tell fortunes decided what the "meaning" of each of the cards was and it's just been parrotted and passed down ever since. People who don't like a certain meaning change it and then that catches on eventually, too, like those who say Death doesn't mean death so pretty soon the books started reflecting that.

Basically, what a card means is just whatever it means to you, never mind what it means to someone else or what it means in a book.

Exactly. And unfortunately, when somebody starts to downplay other's opinions, all it tells me about the person is that she/he is really insecure about her/his OWN opinions. There's no reason to attack if you're in terms with yourself.

So, what's baloney, what's not, not my problem!

Oh but now this is dangerously going off topic...

Last night I read the Wiccan handbook (just for fun) and there was something about the Death card... meaning a termination of things in order to make room for new ones. That's what we're talking about here, isn't it? At least that's how I see it.

 

[veniteangeli]

You know, just as the pieces of a junk oracle were something else at one time (a button becomes something besides a button in interpretation, for instance), the Tarot was undoubtedly something else at the beginning. It was a game. But the way it's used now by most of us, it's not a game anymore the way it was to begin with. So somebody way back when who used it to tell fortunes decided what the "meaning" of each of the cards was and it's just been parrotted and passed down ever since. People who don't like a certain meaning change it and then that catches on eventually, too, like those who say Death doesn't mean death so pretty soon the books started reflecting that.

Basically, what a card means is just whatever it means to you, never mind what it means to someone else or what it means in a book.

I really like this - I've always felt that no matter how much book learning you do on the subject, Tarot and divination and spirituality in general are always going to be more about intuition than knowledge. So perhaps the High Priestess is more effective than the Hierophant in this case! In any event, I really believe that when you're reading, if you "feel" something about a card in a spread, it's generally right. If you can genuinely feel it, then how can it be wrong, right?

I believe Death not to be the end, but the beginning of something new (with perhaps a difficult ending to the phase before). But I've had readings where it did feel slightly more ominous than that, and I'm learning to trust my intuition and not just force it to mean what my books say it means.

 

[The crowned one]

Basically, what a card means is just whatever it means to you, never mind what it means to someone else or what it means in a book.

I really disagree with this.

There is a history to the cards, it is not "art" in the classical studied sense of "art" symbolism, where we can study changes through culture and time, it is tarot, and we have documents going back to fairly close to the beginning that tell us what the tarot images meant to its contemporaries. WE had a set of members publish a couple wonderful contemporary essays on tarot from one of the early set incarnation of the cards. (Explaining the Tarot: Two Italian Renaissance Essays on the Meaning of the Tarot Pack)

To me the cards have a 1500's set of defined meanings, a 1730-1780 set of meanings, with a slow change of defined meanings through to 1910. I see 1910 on to the 70's as the last renaissance of true tarot. Really most of our meanings are relativity new when compared to its about 600 year history.

In tarot, as I know it, the cards have meanings, lots of room to work within, like playing within a scale or key , but there are rules like in music, and I know when I am playing out of key. What makes tarot beautiful is it's history, rules , suit, number majors, and card meanings. If I wanted to make stuff up for each card, I would not use tarot, or if I used a tarot deck, I would not call it tarot.

Death has always had a theme. Unavoidable , not class conscious, we all are going to see it. It is not change but a end of something. Early users of the tarot cards as a game I think would see death as not something to fight but to accept, a part of daily life. Lots of room to work with those few base idea's. Waite added the end of cycle/change aspect with the mystic rose, The Thoth was more blatant in calling it transformation.
Etteilla felt the card meant Mortality, Annihilation, Destruction, the end. Foster's fell within this group of meanings..

There is no intuition without knowledge, learning and understanding.

 

[Zephyros]

I really disagree with this.

There is a history to the cards, it is not "art" in the classical studied sense of "art" symbolism, where we can study changes through culture and time, it is tarot, and we have documents going back to fairly close to the beginning that tell us what the tarot images meant to its contemporaries. WE had a set of members publish a couple wonderful contemporary essays on tarot from one of the early set incarnation of the cards. (Explaining the Tarot: Two Italian Renaissance Essays on the Meaning of the Tarot Pack)

To me the cards have a 1500's set of defined meanings, a 1730-1780 set of meanings, with a slow change of defined meanings through to 1910. I see 1910 on to the 70's as the last renaissance of true tarot. Really most of our meanings are relativity new when compared to its about 600 year history.

In tarot, as I know it, the cards have meanings, lots of room to work within, like playing within a scale or key , but there are rules like in music, and I know when I am playing out of key. What makes tarot beautiful is it's history, rules , suit, number majors, and card meanings. If I wanted to make stuff up for each card, I would not use tarot, or if I used a tarot deck, I would not call it tarot.

Death has always had a theme. Unavoidable , not class conscious, we all are going to see it. It is not change but a end of something. Early users of the tarot cards as a game I think would see death as not something to fight but to accept, a part of daily life. Lots of room to work with those few base idea's. Waite added the end of cycle/change aspect with the mystic rose, The Thoth was more blatant in calling it transformation.
Etteilla felt the card meant Mortality, Annihilation, Destruction, the end. Foster's fell within this group of meanings..

There is no intuition without knowledge, learning and understanding.

I both agree and disagree with you. On one hand, I'm not of the "it's all good" school of thought when pertaining to certain decks such as any of those with a Golden Dawn lineage. The Golden Dawn fairly monopolized the magick world, and while that meant a huge step forward in bringing Tarot to the masses in a palatable context, this also meant that most other schools of thought were drowned out. I do agree with what you said about Death, but if you were, like you said, in the 1500s, decks came with no LWB, no way of "book learning" the meanings. That was the time when intuition came before knowledge, learning and understanding. Even if such documents outlining the "meanings" of the cards existed, they were no doubt unknown to majority of the populace. Indeed, one of the things that differentiate Tarot from other divination tools is its inherent egalitarianism; you don't have to be psychic, devote your life to the occult or learn volumes by heart, it is just there and speaks for itself. In a time when 40 was considered an old crone, Death probably meant Death far more often than today. I am of the firm opinion that the Golden Dawn, or before that Levi or Etiella do not hold all the rights to Tarot as we see it today, it's far bigger than any one organization.

While there are underlying themes associated with the Death card, I don't believe in putting myself into a 14th century mindset, since I'm a modern animal, with problems associated with the modern era. I don't subscribe to the New Age Transformation trend, but neither do I close myself from going off on tangents if the situation depends on it. After all, if the Marseilles encourages original thought in the Minors, then why not the Majors? That, in my opinion, is the root of all roots of Tarot, encouraging you to think, be it about your life, or about the cards themselves.

On the other hand, I do subscribe to the "scholarly" point of view when dealing with decks that hold a pattern, a system and a structure. Obviously, at least to me, if you chose Tarot as a divination tool, then to a certain extent you like the system on which it is based, which is not that of oracle cards, runes or anything else, not that I am disparaging those tools. They are just others. The Thoth Death is what it is because of a myriad of reasons; learning what those reasons are dramatically opened the card up to me. I don't think everyone must delve into the occult in order to read Tarot, but I do think everyone should be at least open to it. Ultimately Tarot is a remnant of the lost art of storytelling; anything that adds more "meat" to your divinations is wonderful.

Besides, even "Transformation" has its merits. The fact that Tarot was "invented" during the 14th century does not mean that that was the end of all knowledge and that nothing new should be written. The problem I have with Transformation is that it is not based on anything. If you create a deck that on one hand is heavily RWS-inspied, but then stray from the structure, then you'd better have a really good reason for doing so. That, in my opinion, shows the true difference between copycats like Doreen Virtue and her abysmal fairies and the lifetime of knowledge Waite infused his deck with.

 

[kwaw]

Exactly. And unfortunately, when somebody starts to downplay other's opinions, all it tells me about the person is that she/he is really insecure about her/his OWN opinions. There's no reason to attack if you're in terms with yourself.

OT: Hi Maagi, my apologies if my comment seemed to be an attack on you - it wasn't - merely a call on a statement of fact about the cards history (not an opinion) you made that is erroneous (albeit frequently made, and often by people who know better). It is the statement of fact you made I meant as 'baloney', not you or your opinions - my apologies if it came over as such.

So, what's baloney, what's not, not my problem!

I hope such an apparent piss-poor attitude to critical faculty isn't typical of the majority of our University Students (whether of history or anything else)!

What is and isn't baloney is a problem - it reflects on one's ability to make critical distinctions and to check sources or otherwise to appear as a gullible fool (and why shouldn't one - one of the possible meanings of the name tarocchi is after all the 'game of the blockhead/fool') - IMHO to stick one's head in the sand or attack the messenger in the face of facts is inherently problematic whether one cares to think of it as such or not.

How the cards meaning has changed over time is part of the historical process too - and I do not consider that modern interpretations are in any way invalidated by a call on the authority of historical origins or intent any more than they are validated by a denial of such (by claims that the history of the tarot's origins and intent are lost in the unknown vagaries of time for example).

Back to the topic in hand: As 'reaper' there are clear associations to be made I think with harvests and the seasons, further exemplified in some depictions of the death card with heads and feet of the dead feeding/seeding the soil and wheat-like allusions in the coloring and structure of the skeleton, which lead us into considerations of the cyclical nature of regenerative nature and death's part in the process of life's continuum. Also perhaps to simile and metaphors of man as grass such as may be found in the bible for example:

James 1:10 But the one who is rich should take pride in his low position, because he will pass away like a wild flower.

James 1:11 For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich man will fade away even while he goes about his business.

1 Peter 1:24 For, "All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall,

Job 14:2 He springs up like a flower and withers away; like a fleeting shadow, he does not endure.

Psalm 90:5 You sweep men away in the sleep of death; they are like the new grass of the morning--

Psalm 103:15 Mortal man! as grass are his days, As a flower of the field so he flourisheth;

Isaiah 40:6 A voice says, "Cry out." And I said, "What shall I cry?" "All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field.

"As for man, his days are as grass,.... He himself is like the grass which springs out of the earth; continues on it for a time, and then drops into it; the continuance of the grass is very short, it flourishes in the morning, is cut down at evening, and withers; see Psalm 90:5. As a flower of the field, so he flourisheth; which denotes the goodliness of man, and describes him in his best estate, as possessed of health, riches, honour, and all the gifts and endowments of nature; and yet, with all these, is only like a field flower, exposed to every wind, liable to be cropped by every hand, and to be trampled upon by the beasts of the field; and therefore flourishes not long: so very precarious and uncertain is man in his most flourishing circumstances; see Isaiah 40:6." Gill's exposition of the bible.

More verses and commentaries on biblical similes with grass here.

 

[Grizabella]

Death can mean transformation to those who believe that death isn't the total end of it all.

Even if you believe that there's no spiritual afterlife, the rotting flesh will feed vegetation and little organisms and worms and insects, which does transform the dead body into something else just as your own body transforms what you eat into healthy (or unhealthy) body tissues for you.

And go back and read your own post, TCO. You outline that Tarot meanings have undergone changes. To quote you: "To me the cards have a 1500's set of defined meanings, a 1730-1780 set of meanings, with a slow change of defined meanings through to 1910. I see 1910 on to the 70's as the last renaissance of true tarot. Really most of our meanings are relativity new when compared to its about 600 year history." Doesn't that describe meanings that have changed?

This I do agree with, however: "There is no intuition without knowledge, learning and understanding."

I think in some respects you and I are saying the same thing, even though you might have mistaken my meaning in the way I said it. What I said, and what I meant, was that a card is whatever it means to you at the time of a reading. It's whatever your intuition tells you that card means in the larger context of your reading---the question and the cards surrounding a particular card. It's the combinations of cards that speak the ultimate message and intuition plays a huge part in that. At least for me it does. In other words, any card is colored by the spread you find it in with regards to the question asked.

For instance, to oversimplify and give an example (which I'm not very good at but humor me) suppose the question is, "What can I expect in the next six months with regard to my job?" Your cards drawn are 8 of Pentacles, 6 of Swords, 6 of Wands, Death, 9 of Cups from the RWS deck. You read it as "If you continue to work hard and set goals, this will bring you to a promotion." But then you die? Then the job dies? Somebody dies and you celebrate that? Who dies? What would you do with that Death card that's hanging out there? If you're going to stick to rigidly insisting that the Death card only means actual death, then what? Or do you read it as that the hard work and persistence is going to bring you to a promotion which will transform that job into one you can have enjoyment and fulfillment from which is reason for celebration?