Quote:
Originally Posted by Abrac
The man can basically be anyone you want him to be, or whoever your intuition suggests he might be. The minors have stated divinatory meanings, but there's a lot of flexibility within the basic framework. From what sources Pamela drew inspiration (even if such sources could be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty), what plays she was in, what the cat's name is, etc., etc., might be of interest to those who are drawn to such trivia, but it doesn't add one thing to a persons ability to use the cards. The same could be said for the majors if a person is using them strictly as a divinatory tool in mundane matters.
|
I do think that in some cases, like in thematic Tarot decks, knowing the source can add a lot to a reading, but of course thematic decks -- like say, one of the Fairytale decks, or one that alludes to a myth -- are designed that way. Otherwise I agree it would be meaningless trivia.
In this case I can safely say, after reading both what the Secrets of Tarot website says about the card and the play itself, that there's not a thing to connect them other than Pamela Smith. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Niechievo. Niente. (For instance, the period setting is wrong, and the child looks NOTHING like Smith's own illustration of Ellen Terry in that play, contrary to what the writer says.) It's an absurd, unsubstantiated claim.