foolish
In 1998, Timothy Betts wrote the book, “Tarot and the Millennium,” in which he proposed to explain the origins of the tarot through the Bible’s Revelations. In my thread under Tarot History in this forum, I was earlier asked to comment on this theory. Although I had not read Betts’ book at the time, I have recently obtained a copy. Here are a few of my initial thoughts:
Like many tarot theories, Betts’ fits into the model of those which have to deal with cards or images that don’t fit within its context. That is, although Revelations seems to correspond to many of the cards, especially those at the end of the deck, it has difficulties with others. For example, both the books of Daniel and Ezekiel are brought in to handle a couple of cards (Strength and The Wheel of Fortune, respectively) which can’t be explained in Revelations. O.K., so these are also biblical references. Perhaps we can stretch a little on this. But then he introduces Frederick II to explain The Emperor and The Empress, and John of Rupescissa for The Hanged Man.
It seems a biblical theme was needed to explain the cards at the end of the deck, while historical events of the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries were needed to take care of some of the earlier cards. In the end, since The Fool doesn’t fit into either camp, it was designated (somewhat arbitrarily) as representing Francis of Assisi. However, St. Francis was not known as a traveling monk, and certainly didn’t resemble any of the images used to depict The Fool in the early tarot.
In order to make some of his connections work, Betts introduces us to a technique he calls “symbol substitution.” Examples include the substitution of the book held by the apostle John for the lamp or hourglass held by The Hermit, the Chariot pulled by horses rather than oxen, and the “beast” represented dogs in The Moon instead of man in Revelations. Although this opens up a wider net for proposing associations, it can also create a few problems. In the case of The Hermit, for example, why would we see a substitution of the symbol of a lamp for a book, which would identify John as the true Hermit, when it has already been established in The Popess card as an accepted symbol to represent an apostle?
I can bring up other problems with this theory, but it would make this thread too long. Betts himself admits that the book has discrepancies. Discovering a theory of the tarot is often like putting a very old puzzle together. On the one hand, you sometimes find that some of the pieces are missing. In this case, you can still hope to get a pretty clear picture of the whole puzzle, even without those “holes.” In other instances, however, you may find that some of the pieces you have just don’t fit. In this case, you have to either disregard them or try to squeeze them in to make them fit. I feel that Betts’ theory falls into the latter case of puzzle solving.
I would be interested in hearing from others as to how they feel about the theory of Revelations.
Like many tarot theories, Betts’ fits into the model of those which have to deal with cards or images that don’t fit within its context. That is, although Revelations seems to correspond to many of the cards, especially those at the end of the deck, it has difficulties with others. For example, both the books of Daniel and Ezekiel are brought in to handle a couple of cards (Strength and The Wheel of Fortune, respectively) which can’t be explained in Revelations. O.K., so these are also biblical references. Perhaps we can stretch a little on this. But then he introduces Frederick II to explain The Emperor and The Empress, and John of Rupescissa for The Hanged Man.
It seems a biblical theme was needed to explain the cards at the end of the deck, while historical events of the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries were needed to take care of some of the earlier cards. In the end, since The Fool doesn’t fit into either camp, it was designated (somewhat arbitrarily) as representing Francis of Assisi. However, St. Francis was not known as a traveling monk, and certainly didn’t resemble any of the images used to depict The Fool in the early tarot.
In order to make some of his connections work, Betts introduces us to a technique he calls “symbol substitution.” Examples include the substitution of the book held by the apostle John for the lamp or hourglass held by The Hermit, the Chariot pulled by horses rather than oxen, and the “beast” represented dogs in The Moon instead of man in Revelations. Although this opens up a wider net for proposing associations, it can also create a few problems. In the case of The Hermit, for example, why would we see a substitution of the symbol of a lamp for a book, which would identify John as the true Hermit, when it has already been established in The Popess card as an accepted symbol to represent an apostle?
I can bring up other problems with this theory, but it would make this thread too long. Betts himself admits that the book has discrepancies. Discovering a theory of the tarot is often like putting a very old puzzle together. On the one hand, you sometimes find that some of the pieces are missing. In this case, you can still hope to get a pretty clear picture of the whole puzzle, even without those “holes.” In other instances, however, you may find that some of the pieces you have just don’t fit. In this case, you have to either disregard them or try to squeeze them in to make them fit. I feel that Betts’ theory falls into the latter case of puzzle solving.
I would be interested in hearing from others as to how they feel about the theory of Revelations.