In a nutshell... why I opt for the Marseille over the Waite/Colman Smith

The thread Stripping to the Bone.... has certainly, for myself, been one of those I personally consider of the more engaging variety, and the various contributions therein a delight... thank you especially (in terms of the ways it has weighed on my own contributions) Rosanne and Teheuti (there's always an element of not paying sufficient tribute to all those who have influenced, so limit it).

But it has also set me thinking as to what I have at other times mentioned as both a valuing and a criticism of the Waite/Colman Smith (henceforth WCS), and why I tend to opt towards the Marseille.

Firstly, part of the wonderful qualities of the WCS is that Pamela Colman Smith, under partial instruction from Waite, has managed to syncretise quite disparate elements into a harmonious whole.

At the time, not only were decks with various provenances considered (amongst them of course the Marseille), but also such as more northernly decks with standard depictions of the Sun card with a horse-rider, but also the Mantegna, the Sola Busca, and various other decks of earlier times.

In addition, other elements deemed important, though basically extraneous to the deck, were integrated within the images. These include the views promulgated by the Golden Dawn, such as their preferred Hebrew letter correlations, the positioning of the cards upon their prefered version (the Kircher version) of the Kabalistic Tree of Life, elemental attributions to the suits, and, partly as a consequence of the first of these mentioned, astrological correlations.

Quite an undertaking, and quite a task to bring together, in a way that is really quite harmonious, all these things into a deck that welds each image seemlessly.

...and yet, this welding is also precisely my criticism.

With Tarot, I want not a blending of various decks (some of which not Tarot) brought together, nor do I want additional elements brought in that effectively alters and changes Tarot. To give an analogy, it is a little like genetically altering a plant with fish-genes in order to achieve a particular desired outcome, or of altering a fish with other genes to make them glow!

Sure it can be done, and certainly there is already a market for such (see the sad, to my eyes, result of the latter here).

If I look at decks around, again and again what strikes me is that the central determinant as to whether a deck is Tarot is its proximity to the Marseille. One could argue that this is because I prefer the Marseille above others, yet, for myself, it is the other way around: I prefer the Marseille above others because of this centrality.

It does not take away from my appreciation of other decks, and my own cards for the three Aeclectic projects [so when's the fourth starting!?! ] certainly deviate also from the Marseille (as did a deck I designed as a study, and never even tried to get published - I doubt any one would have published it in any case - some 20 years ago).

In another thread (Why do people use the Tarot of Marseilles?) some time back, I wrote that:

I see the family tree of Tarot as having each of its branches connected to the Marseilles as the trunk. It too continues to grow (witness the Félicité, the Hadar, the Camoin - each under ten years old, as shoots straight up extending the Tree). At its roots are myriad woodcuts, beautifully illustrated and individually painted cards, Mamluk non-Tarot cards, Cathedral carved stone images, and myriad texts and traditions.

Its major branches include the Rider/Waite/Colman-Smith, the Crowley/Harris Thoth, the Etteilla Thoth, and the Falconnier Egyptian. A number of other limbs also either branch off from these, or again from the main trunk.

Thing is, if it's going to be Tarot, and not some other wonderful deck which may be from another tree (such as the LeNormand, amongst numerous other, deck), it is going to be, in some important, even if removed way, connected to the Marseille trunk...

Also, if the word annoys, forget the title 'Marseille'... it is a late appellation

Click to expand...

In addition, and related, are other related discussions - amongst these:

• What makes a Marseilles?; and
• The Visconti - and the Marseilles.

And so I now step back from what I had intended on being a much more succinct post...

In terms of how it feels to me, reading with cards from
Le Tarot de Marseille is like browsing through the works
of Shakespeare, while with The Pamela Colman Smith,
it is like being on stage and starring in the leading role.

I enjoyed these insights!

And for me, the prototype trumps and Northern Italian variations that I'm learning slowly seem like...well, a closer celebration of Dante Algheri's poetic version of the universe. Of course I delight in walking through the Italian decks as an excuse for revisiting Renaissance chronologies and poetic discoveries.

My enjoyment of Dante Algheri translations and reproductions of Northern Italian decks is modern....and my only excuse is perhaps I like things a little older than my supposed aged soul...perhaps also I like the gilded roots of things as well.

And looking at the later Marseilles that fed into the modern decks can also be a fortunate for my delight in history. There is a most interesting and veritable flowering of art history, humor in the iconography and perhaps romance--not only in the Marseilles, but in later branches and offshoots of other people's preferred generations of tarot trees.

Thanks to you all for explaining your preferences as clearly as you have here.

Regards,

Cerulean

...and a healthy tree has not only many branches, but numerous leaves and, perhaps, even nuts

TdM to me is like Shakespeare.

RWS is like Raymond Chandler.

Each have their purpose in this gritty city…

But I have to ask…Dear JMD, how do you feel about the Swiss 1JJ?

I have a tree outside my window (actually, many trees, as I sit at home and type - but one in particular) that has a main trunk, and a tiny branch sticking right out, closer to the bottom of the trunk than where the major divisions occur.

The 1JJ, as Besançon decks in general, is for me like that. The Junon/Jupiter depictions replace the Papess/Pope (or High Priestess/Hierophant, if you prefer those titles).

In spite of dabbling for nearly 30 years, my tarot 'history' is of a paltry 4 or 5 years duration. I thank you jmd for the tree analogy because, in both its simplicity, and implicit complexity, it has drawn together so much randomly acquired knowledge into a coherent (though incomplete) whole. I have the picture that shows the jigsaw puzzle. Now I will ask myself, with each new deck I encounter, or new book I read, "Is this a branch of the tree, or merely a grafted branch with some exotic and interesting fruit, but not an off-shoot of the original tree?"

mythos

Yep . . .

I can't add too much to this since I feel the tree comparaison is sensible.

I should think that people, in contemplating these "fluffy dragon of the dark people yelling Mimi" Tarot decks, should be able to sense that something just does not hang together in a coherent fashion -- unlike the Marseilles pattern -- but then many people seem to like watching "reality" TV instead of just living their own life better.

I love all parts of jmd's metaphorical tree....

I use Marseille decks and "RWS" decks for study and for reading...

I'm in the middle of reading Place's new book on The Tarot...and I am gaining a better understanding of what jmd has so succintly put in his opening post...

about how the Kabbalah, astrology, and Hebrew letter correlations came in to play in the later decks.

Some of this seems to be "made to fit" by rearranging elements, images, ideas of numerology....so, when I read with a RWS deck, while some of these aspects may come forward during the reflection in the reading, I have not found myself exploring these areas in depth...in part because of time constraints and because of the large body of information comprising any of these studies singularly.

That being said...I find the Marseille decks to be more "pure" in terms of the design(s).

Yet, when I read, I definitely choose (or my sitter chooses) the deck that seems to suit the moment of the reading. My favorite decks for reading are the Hadar Marseille and the Morgan Greer. I am beginning to use the Old English Tarot and the International Icon Tarot (talk about the nuts on the tree with this latter deck!!)....

I love many others and do use them occasionally. I find Place's Alchemical a lovely deck to study and to use for readings...although my knowledge of alchemy is quite limited. The accompanying book is quite good and bears rereading for me.

The Swiss 1JJ, which I just received....well...I'm having a lot of trouble with all of the "left facing" elements and the age on the faces of the figures, especially the Pages.....

So...I find the Marseille like

a lovely rack of lamb...simple, no sauce, rich, pure, tasty, clearly defined, well-bred.

and perhaps RWS and some clones as

the dessert...like a trifle filled with cream and berries and perhaps some hidden sweets for one to find in the depths of the whole.

Then we have a deck like the IIT....all modern and universal, like those signs we see around the world that Everyman/woman can read because they speak in universal symbols, depicted with simple lines and elements and colors, forcing one to look within and allow the imagination to blossom.

terri

What an interesting thread to read.

I agree with just about all of it, I think.

Which is why I am back with the Marseille again.

I am often called by my RWS, as I mentioned before in another thread, but I have to say, in comparison, that and all the other modern decks do not feel as ... pure. Traditional tarot and meanings, as many describe the RWS is not at the root of tarot and I feel it is a little sad that such a modern addition has become a standard, leaving its ancestors in the dark.

LB