6655321
I've been working with Jodorowsky's Way of the Tarot for months now and while I think I'll be working with the book for some time more (it's a really good book!) it occurred to me, as soon as I read his thoughts on the court cards that while I generally like the systems and meanings presented in the book I didn't quite agree with his assessment of their value / interaction. While I wouldn't say I'm close to being “done” with the book I've been working with it regularly for a few months and I only feel more strongly this way. Anyhow, here's the outline of why I think he's got the court cards at least partially wrong presented with total humility (I realize I could be missing some key fact and be totally wrong).
They posses no numbers of their own so we should not assign them numerical value; Pages = Pages, Pages ≠ II.V (2.5). Doing so would be akin to putting a number on the Fool or a name on XIII.
Furthermore, feudal courts did not represent a process. Pages may become knights but knights wouldn't generally become queens, queens don't turn into kings and kings may sometimes have also been knights or even pages at some point but they (unless you count conquest) become kings. In the case of conquest where a knight “trumps” a king, that emissary would be generally be conquering from the outside (except in the case of a civil war, usurpation, or something along those lines which could be described in a reading by something like; Knight of Sticks, XIII, King of Sticks), in line with the knight's role as an emissary / conqueror. So, while the King of Swords would still “trump” the Knight of Swords (Kings (or Emperors, or Popes, sometimes Queens or Empresses and potentially Popesses) tell knights what to do), the Knight of Swords could still potentially “trump” (if the conquest is successful) the entirety of the court of Cups, etc… in regards to each suit transitioning into the next.
This doesn't really change the meanings of the cards significantly for me at this point but I feel that the relations of the these cards are more nuanced than a simple linear / cyclical progression and any attempt to present them as such (as tempting as it is, given repeated themes of cycles and transformations in the tarot) only serves to constrain a deeper understanding of the courts.
Anyhow, it's an idea I'm still developing that I just wanted to throw out there to see if anyone else familiar with the book had any opinion on the topic and my approach to it.
They posses no numbers of their own so we should not assign them numerical value; Pages = Pages, Pages ≠ II.V (2.5). Doing so would be akin to putting a number on the Fool or a name on XIII.
Furthermore, feudal courts did not represent a process. Pages may become knights but knights wouldn't generally become queens, queens don't turn into kings and kings may sometimes have also been knights or even pages at some point but they (unless you count conquest) become kings. In the case of conquest where a knight “trumps” a king, that emissary would be generally be conquering from the outside (except in the case of a civil war, usurpation, or something along those lines which could be described in a reading by something like; Knight of Sticks, XIII, King of Sticks), in line with the knight's role as an emissary / conqueror. So, while the King of Swords would still “trump” the Knight of Swords (Kings (or Emperors, or Popes, sometimes Queens or Empresses and potentially Popesses) tell knights what to do), the Knight of Swords could still potentially “trump” (if the conquest is successful) the entirety of the court of Cups, etc… in regards to each suit transitioning into the next.
This doesn't really change the meanings of the cards significantly for me at this point but I feel that the relations of the these cards are more nuanced than a simple linear / cyclical progression and any attempt to present them as such (as tempting as it is, given repeated themes of cycles and transformations in the tarot) only serves to constrain a deeper understanding of the courts.
Anyhow, it's an idea I'm still developing that I just wanted to throw out there to see if anyone else familiar with the book had any opinion on the topic and my approach to it.