Reading Marseille VS RWS

prudence

I like it too. It is interesting that many of those who have been involved in the re-creation of the TdM (such as Flornoy, Camoin, Marteau, and Hadar) are much more creative, imaginative, and (I dare suggest with due trepidation) esoterically inclined, than the hard-core Tarot historians who emphasize the exoteric playing card aspect with sledge-hammer intensity.

I'm just wondering, is there enough interest in this subject to create a thread about it? The noticeable esoteric and or occult-ish vibes from those who recreate/restore historic decks? As well as the noticeable anti-occult/esoteric penchant for those who are faithful to tarot history? What are your thoughts, folks?
 

Kuroga

I'm just wondering, is there enough interest in this subject to create a thread about it? The noticeable esoteric and or occult-ish vibes from those who recreate/restore historic decks? As well as the noticeable anti-occult/esoteric penchant for those who are faithful to tarot history? What are your thoughts, folks?

I would really like it. I have not taken part in this thread, but I've been reading it eagerly. I am not an expert, but what naturally drew me to TdM is the resonance with my spiritual path which is embedded in Western esoteric... practices.

I know that TdM were originally playing cards. However, there are cards that resonates with my understanding of esoteric symbolism and correspondences and that is why I like so much reading with them. Of course if one is willing to, everything could be read in 'La Maison de Dieu', but this does not diminish the value of our readings of the symbolism of the cards.

I think RWS-style decks bring this out very clearly, and put on it the clothes of a particular esoteric tradition. However, they also partly take away the mental journey necessary to unveil the meaning of TdM cards - which I think may be an integral part of the reading process.

In brief, I would jump right in such a thread :)

Peace,

Kuroga
 

Richard

I agree with Kuroga. Prudence's suggestion is a good one, assuming that we remain mature enough not to let it degenerate into a knock-down-drag-out debate between extremists. Admittedly, the historians have an advantage, but I think that there is some validity to the statement that 'lack of evidence does not mean evidence of lack'. There are some issues about the major arcana that seem to defy a 'rational' explanation (without resorting to sophistry, with which some historians are quite adept).
 

Kingdubrock

There's a third perspective (and probably more) that i've become more conscious of from reading more Flornoy interviews and his LWB's recently, which is the position that a genuine spiritual power or transmission existed among certain engravers and the quasi-monastic "compagnons" but were lost elsewhere. He claimed for example that a true transmission/training/mastery existed among the artisans involved in the Dodal and Noblet decks, which is what led him to make them I suppose (citing Merme as the last true master) that was absent in pretty much all later decks, including the Conver (!). He went as far as to refer to such decks as "fantasy decks" and the product of copyists. He claimed the same about Merme's son, the engraver for the Payen decks, who had only begun his training at the age of 18 when his father died. In other words the internal meaning was lost on his son and can be seen in the Payen decks too.

Interestingly (to me anyway) he claims an example of this can be seen in the upward shooting flames in the Tower - which was gone by Conver's time. He speculates that a Syrian Sufi influence might have been present.

Im not sure if he is speaking from research or his "inner eye". While this can easily offend on one hand, on another, these two decks in particular do seem to me to have a distinctly different feel. The Dodal feeling intensely direct, triggering impressions in a "flash" like way, while the Noblet seems to draw me in more slowly, engaging my frontal lobe a bit more. So there may be something in what he says. I dunno.
 

prudence

I agree with Kuroga. Prudence's suggestion is a good one, assuming that we remain mature enough not to let it degenerate into a knock-down-drag-out debate between extremists. Admittedly, the historians have an advantage, but I think that there is some validity to the statement that 'lack of evidence does not mean evidence of lack'. There are some issues about the major arcana that seem to defy a 'rational' explanation (without resorting to sophistry, with which some historians are quite adept).

LRichard, I think you may be the man to bring this to fruition, the guy who starts the thread. ;)