RichardT said:
Question: do you read the astrological aspect of the 2 of Wands as:
(1) influence of Mars in Aries (as if you are staring at this configuration on an astrological chart), or ...
(2) the first decan of Aries, where Mars would have a smidgeon of extra dignity by face if it were there
I learned to read tarot the (1) way, and books like the Book of Thoth seem to imply it is correct. However, a few cards have difficult attributions, considering their accepted meanings. 9 of Pentacles comes to mind, where I've even seen people say "venus is in its fall in virgo, but that doesn't seem to affect the card much." That kind of language never sits well with me.
So now, I'm branching out and learning some traditional astrology, and am starting to think that interpretation (2) is more clean. Maybe the 9 of Pentacles is simply the second decan of Virgo, slightly more friendly to a Venus influence than the 8 or 10 due to dignity by face.
I guess I'm wondering if there is a clear GD party line on this distinction?
Hey Richard,
This question actually sits squarely in the middle of research I've been doing on the Decans for the past 3 years and a book that's in process at the moment... so forgive me if I seem deranged or monoscopic.
The answer is: No, the GD isn't particularly clear about it, but, Yes the system "works" (whatever that might mean) because it predates the GD. Mathers seems to have slopped the decans into the system, and the resultant attributions are one of the only legitimate GD innovations, for better or worse. Important to note is that the Decans are 36 asterisms that are assigned to parts of the Zodiac for calendrical purposes and referred to by most folks before the 15th century as the "Lords of Time" who had power over even the 7 Planets. The power of the Decans is
characterized by the Chaldean breakdown of Planet in sign, but they are neither planet nor sign. The problem is that for the past century the obsession with sunsigns has foregrounded the map and ignored the territory.
This is also the trouble with using any kind of nativity definitions of the Decans... The Crowley-plagiarized-by-late-career-Adams quote that Teheuti references above not only doesn't refer to a Decan, it refers to Venus' effect on an individual based on its position in a natal horoscope. Several classical astrologers who actually used Decans described them as resembling a Planet in its own rulership...
even those in detriment, so the situation is more complex than a horoscope read. More importantly, Crowley doesn't seem to have been a particularly good or educated astrologer. For all his love of Nuit, he liked the symbols and mystique more than the practice. He favors QBLH and it shows, in ALL his writing. So too, any modern sunsign statements will be similarly tangential: modern astrology believes the zodiac is fixed and planets are modified by their position. Classical astrology literally believes the exact opposite. The planets are the force, the zodiac is only locale. So too the modern (self) obsession with natal astrology, which was NOT the primary work of astrologers before 1800. Prediction and judgment was your bread and butter work. Cartomancy actually resembles horary (or electional) more than anything else in astrology.
The impulse for people familiar with sunsign astrology is to think of the Decans as the Zodiac sign filtered by the planet, as opposed to the traditional astrology POV which would be the reverse. Al Kindi's
On the Stellar Rays is a good read on this point. For whatever it's worth, I think Aristotle's qualities (hot/cold, wet/dry) generally present the core for interpretations... and a consideration of dignity reveals much. So "Mars in Aries" produces a force resembling Mars (hot/dry) enthroned in his rulership : Aries (hot/dry) during the day. “It is a Human decanate and an Armed decanate.” Mars is the lesser malefic, “In feats of Warre and Courage invincible, scourning any should exceed him, subject to no Reason, Bold, Confident, Immoveable, Contentious, challenging all Honour to themselves, Valiant, lovers of Warre and things pertaining thereunto, hazarding himself to all Perils, willingly will obey no body; nor submit to any, a large reporter of his own Acts, one that fights all things in comparison of Victory, and yet of prudent behaviour in his own affaires.” Out of the seven deadly sins, Mars is assigned to Wrath. So, in time-honored practice, the GD boils it down into the Decanic spirit: This isn't the Lord of Power or Stength. This is Dominion.
Or take the 9 of Disks... Venus in Virgo. Venus is in Fall
BUT "She
governeth the Earthly Triplicity by day viz. Taurus,
Virgo, Capricorn." Venus, the lesser benefic, is hot and wet (primarily wet... ie connective), while Virgo is cold and dry (and ruled by Mercury which is cold/dry yet "like unto Water"!!
). So... Wet (passive) predominates, modifying the nature of Virgo... and in Aristotle, wetness fills disparate AND similar things (while Dry
contains/limits similar things). We might consider Venus a fertile Lady wandering barren turf; she isn't doomed, but she'd like to ditch this mudpit. Venus in Fall and ruling Triplicity and wet-wet-wet. As Lilly puts it, "the Fall shows but a present subjection unto a misfortune with hopes of Recovery.” So in Fall, a Planet has sort of lost its wallet and possibly its clothes in a foreign country, but Triplicity changes things: Ibn Ezra compares Triplicity to a man in his relative's house... so here it may be like being forced to sleep on a couch at your weird uncle's house over the holidays: there's a leak overhead, but you won't be murdered. Then consider the Picatrix: "This is a face of working, making a living, saving, stinginess, niggardliness and depriving others of their rights." Not really as positive a take on "
Lord of Gain" as we might hope, but you can see the logic. Not so much Venus pouring forth bounty as Venus gathering cash by hook and crook so she can afford a ticket home. You can also see the strange "Bird in a gilded cage" quality that turns up in Waite-Smith and its derivatives. Stir in a little Etteilla (also
traditional astrology, btw!) and Bob's yer uncle.
You could easily do the same for your examples of the Lord of Sorrow or the Lord of Completion. Traditional astrology is the only course here, natch. And again, I think it's well worth considering the 4 qualities which inturn impact Dignity; and take a look at Aristotle's
On Generation and Corruption.
Now, there are LOTS and LOTS of books that will break down the Qabalistic attributions of the minors. Of course there are, because there were LOTS and LOTS of books, papers, and lectures by the GD members covering exactly that. The reason its so easy for people to argue the case for primarily QBLH-interps is because there's a ton of exegesis that's already chewed that meat for everyone. So the bulk of the GD curriculum is QBLH focused. Even better, after it was ripped clean of its various religious moorings, QBLH was so malleable it could be molded to fit anything.
Instant Mysteries! Just add Otz Chim! Which is why the GD could discuss Egyptian or Hittite "godforms" without, uhh, reading Egyptian or Hittite.
It's also how we wind up with the dopey New Age idea that Spirits come in interchangeable archetypal flavors like supernal Haagen-Dasz or Merkavah is "creative visualizaton" on steroids... and how Silver Ravenwolf and her filthy ilk have publishing careers:
Study not required so everyone's an expert! I can't fathom why people are so willing to enshrine the GD party line whole when scholarship has moved on in the past 10 years, let alone the past 50. But, please know that the Decans remain adamantly, squarely outside that framework... they do line up with it at points (what doesn't?!), but not cleanly, and not organically. So the irritation you feel about the messiness may be more a result of (as Teheuti put it) mashing a square peg into a round hole with a rosecross hammer.
RichardT said:
At that point my question is "where is the text on how _that_ astrological system works?" In all of tarot history, no one has thought to write it down? I could make peace with any coherent system, as long as I can learn it, you know?
I imagine many serious tarot/astrology students have hit this road-block at some point. Those of you that have gotten through it, how did you do it?
How's this for megalomania? Because "no one has thought to write it down," I am writing it my own damn self. I was equally baffled and just crazed enough to dive in. A couple years back, I put together a giuide to the Decans and gradually it got longer and longer and more involved. I kept finding new sources... strange connections... weird gaps in the GD papers. The more I wrote about them, the more people started telling me to just sit down and write the thing as a proper book... It's just taken on a life of its own. I just have to put it aside when I'm scripting something, so its been a bit slow going.
The funny thing is, the more I actually take apart the astrological gears the more I respect the symmetry and coherence of the Decan symbolism. Granted, this may be because I'm a nutjob who's spent way too much time mulling over Liber T... not to mention traditional astrology texts. But the more I look, the more I think astrology isn't as minor as the popular books would have it. The trouble is, nobody is doing the research. And small wonder, trying to dig out anwers to these questions has driven me back to haunt the stacks at Columbia and to translate books out of German and Italian
rolleyes
. This stuff is just not available at McBorders in a scratch-n-sniff Llewellyn edition and is never gonna appeal to the "go with the flow" market. It is unmapped territory, hence my desire to actually get a proper book written on the subject that doesn't just regurgitate someone else's half-assed research or drag Angels or affirmations into the mix. Gack.
The Decans are
old. The magickal images from which Mathers derived the GD pip meanings predate hermetic QBLH by well over a 1000 years and were so revered that their elaborate depictions and original Egyptian names survived in mangled form over the centuries.
Imagine! That's not even a BS New Age speculation; that's astrological history. I say that not to confer some kind of antiquity onto the Tarot, but rather to identify a legitimate tradition that has gotten VERY short shrift because of patchy, reflexive research and aquarian age laziness. The way I see it, if
I have to write this book then I'm gonna: at this point I'd say it wants to be researched and written and I am on the case in a big way.
Anyways, I may be alone in this. I don't think there's a Golden Dawn party line, because they ignored a lot of astrology by dearth of interest, inclination, or legitimate sources. They
didn't do their homework, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there to be done, or that the system they swiped hadn't been codified by people who did
their homework. Met on their own terms, the Decans work... frankly I think they kick all kinds of divinatory ass, which probably means I am a nutjob.
Scion
