Concise History of the Pips?

paninipress

N/A

N/A N/A
 

kwaw

Association of the four suits with other 'fours' I think probably came first i.e., four seasons, four estates, directions, cardinal virtues, elements, temperaments.

There maybe also the influence of the literary use of a deck of cards allegorically, figuratively in poems and plays, political satire.

Sometimes a literary reference or political might attach itself to particular cards, e.g. in England the Jack of Clubs was associated with treason since at least Elizabethan times.

Add also the play between the ordinary pack of cards and such things as seasons that people made a play on (four seasons, 13 weeks a season, days in a years etc.,) - such play was also associated at least from the 17th century with biblical associations (e.g., in the manner of the soldiers tale caught playing cards, who explains the cards in reference to religion (the trinity, 10 commandments, 12 disciples sort of thing).

I think the earliest keyword type list with Tarot pips/trumps (a limited set, not the whole deck) is a piedmont list c.1750.

The first complete list of keyword type list comes probably with Etteilla in the 1780's, and these continue today, having been incorporated by both exponents of the English and Continental esoteric schools.

Many of those given by Etteilla for the tarot latin suits he adapted from those used for the French suited pique decks - which he says he learnt c.1750's and received as traditional (or from a teacher from Piedmonte).

When reading with pips (whether french or latin suits), each individual card was not necessarily given a particular, individual meaning - rather it was good or bad according to its suit (e.g., commonly spades/swords were 'bad' - but might be good in context of a question in relation to war or military advancement), and no regard was given to its number, or if it was it might be nothing more to indicate that it was weak because it was low or stronger because it was high.

Anyways the first lists of keyword type meanings, for both normal (French suited) playing cards and latin suited (tarot) cards I think is with Etteilla. There is that Piedmonte list - but Etteilla is the one that has most influence in terms of the 'traditional' DM we come across to this day. Although Etteilla makes a lot of number symbolism this is mainly in regard to the stucture of the deck and card interactions. The keyword meanings he gives to the pip cards at least don't appear to be based on number symbolism (one can detect some in the trumps, e.g., in regards to his Trump 17 as Death). The emblem + number symbolism method came a little later.

If anyone has the credit of 'spelling it out' - then Etteilla is the guy you're looking for.
 

paninipress

N/A N/A
 

kwaw

I've read that Eteilla's version also contained a fair amount of intentional misdirection.

Maybe those you've read are themselves up to a little misdirection :D

Unless one is following specific philosophy/system that lends it's own attributions to the cards, why don't more people just make up their own definitions instead of adopting the ones from a tradition that they don't actually follow?

No reason you can't, tis always an option.

That's what the tarot forefathers appear to have done.

Which tarot forefathers would they be then?
 

Zephyros

Unless one is following specific philosophy/system that lends it's own attributions to the cards, why don't more people just make up their own definitions instead of adopting the ones from a tradition that they don't actually follow? That's what the tarot forefathers appear to have done. :)

Not necessarily arbitrary. People like Ettiella devised systems that would elevate Tarot from a "mere" parlor game into something the believed was a bit higher up. Later on, the Golden Dawn would bring this sophistication to dizzying heights of complexity, combining many different structures. Also keep in mind that the cards' attributions weren't really for divination as we know it today, but rather intended to be a spiritual map of creation, especially when combined with the Tree of Life.

The meanings regurgitated in so many books today are a simplification and bastardization of all these different systems, especially the GD's.
 

paninipress

N/A N/A
 

Zephyros

Closrapexa, this was incredibly illuminating. Thanks!

Since the RWS is the most popular deck today, most decks based on it have meanings built on GD doctrines, although Waite himself was also influenced by Ettiella. If you're interested, you might want to have a look at Book T (pdf). It can be downloaded for free. You could also compare it to the Pictorial Key to the Tarot, that comes with all RWS decks, and almost any random Tarot book, and you'll be able to see the development of the ideas. For example, many things Rachel Pollack says in 78 Degrees of Wisdom can be traced back to Book T. Although the latter discusses the cards in far more abstract terms, much of its essence is felt in the former.
 

ravenest

The further back one goes the less concise the history is ... far back , we cant know (historically) but Kwaw's post # 2 is a nice suppositional summary for the beginning, we can never know concisely bur I see no objections to his outline, it seems logical and probable.

So I a dont see why ...

It all seems a bit arbitrary.

Also, with this;
It seems a bit thin to just use elements and numerology to come up with the various and specific meanings.

'Elements' and 'numerology' were concepts in use long before there were ever tarot cards or playing cards ... it would not be a big quantum leap ro see those ideas extended to any system or game current at the time or being developed.

With Kwaw's outline suggesting the influence of concepts such as seasons, current paradigms , etc. I see people doing that all the time here on At ... so its still happening :)
Unless one is following specific philosophy/system that lends it's own attributions to the cards, why don't more people just make up their own definitions instead of adopting the ones from a tradition that they don't actually follow? That's what the tarot forefathers appear to have done. :)

Yes, but as explained above it doesnt appear people 'just made it up' ... again, the process of attributing meanings I see more likely described by Kwaw's post #3 than a bunch of people pulling random ideas out of a hat or the 'thin air' . I believe without some basic concepts of consensus of agreement (as people saw the connections) the whole thing would have fallen apart, people would have 'seen' meanings and connections and changed the meanings towards that, other than maintaining random selections.

It can just seem random when the systems, relationships and analogies within tarot (or any 'valid' system) are not understood or recognised. Some people start to complain, say its all random, the system is BS and why cant I make up my own ... as also said above ... you can. But, to me, and IMO that is disguarding a chunk of gold because we didnt recognise it.

However I see that there are many people out there today that give close to random meanings ... 'divined' from visual 'clues' on the card ... interpreted without the code or symbol system used by the decks creator. .... there is a humorous thread about that around here somewhere ;)