Tarot Correspondences

Barleywine

Thanks for the mention of Skinner's book. I have a few of his but not that one.

As far as approaching correspondences as a novice, I would start with "occult number theory" (not numerology of the "your lucky number" variety) by checking out Pythagoras, Iamblichus and others, even Agrippa (but he tended to wrap religion around his ideas, probably as camouflage). If you really want to "go deep" with it (isomorphs and such), Joseph Maxwell will take you there. Every deck partakes of number, so every deck is approachable in this way.

Second in my book would be the classical elements, which we all know already as "suits," but it can be extended to trump cards as well. This also can be applied fairly uniformly to most decks. You could go all the way back to Empedocles to find the root of the concept.

Astrological correspondences are probably best attacked from the Golden Dawn perspective since they had the most fully-realized (although still imperfect as I see it) conceptual model. I find their use of the Chaldean decans to be especially valuable. Corrine Kenner's Tarot and Astrology adheres closely to the GD model and is easy to assimilate (although more convincing in its astrology than its tarot aspects).

The Tree of Life stuff is worthwhile from a more abstract angle, and is an entire study on its own. Robert Wang's book The Qabalistic Tarot is a good starting point, although I understand Lon Milo DuQuette's more recent books are good as well. (I only have his Thoth guide.) I sometimes find inspiration in the names of the Hebrew letters and their connection with the Major Arcana, but it's not 100%.

Color symbolism at a basic level has occasional usefulness, but not all decks apply any kind of coherent systematic approach to it. Red as Fire, Blue as Water, Yellow as Air and Green as Earth (although I like some "brown-ness" to it) are fairly common and follow the elemental outline for the most part. The Golden Dawn had an elaborate methodology for this as well (King Scale, Queen Scale, etc.), but it hasn't made a huge impression on me for the purposes of reading the cards; basic seems best in that sense.
 

Spiffo

Wang and DuQuette are excellent recommendations.

DuQuette's The Chicken Qabalah of Rabbi Lamed Ben Clifford Weiser Books, USA, 2001, is both terribly funny, and terribly informative. It's a great introduction to Kabbalah, Qabalah, Cabala, however you want to spell it. I understand he is preparing to bring the Rabbi back for a further volume.

Wang is particularly good because of the comparative nature of his book (The Qabalistic Tarot, Marcus Aurelius Press, USA, 2004 is the one I have currently. Some of his other books may be of interest too).

While I like Corrine Kenner's book too I've found that Austin Coppock's tome (36 Faces: The History, Astrology and Magic of the Decans, Three Hands Press, USA, 2014) is a revelation. His blend of historical research and the sheer poetry of his writing has expanded my understanding of the Minors especially.

They are all rabbit holes though, that lead to immense warrens, where one, like Alice, encounters all manner of distractions, blind alleys, mazes and labyrinths, not to mention cheeky multicoloured rabbits.

But apart from all the (weighty) and sometimes intimidating correspondences written about, why not try just creating your own. A simple exercise I still return to is linking cards to songs. Obviously this will be a very personal set of correspondences, but it does get you thinking outside the box. I had a friend who was a very knowledgeable Christian, well knowledgeable about the Bible at any rate, and he developed a set of correspondences from card to Bible passages. Not my thing really but fascinating nonetheless.

Play ...
 

Barleywine

While I like Corrine Kenner's book too I've found that Austin Coppock's tome (36 Faces: The History, Astrology and Magic of the Decans, Three Hands Press, USA, 2014) is a revelation. His blend of historical research and the sheer poetry of his writing has expanded my understanding of the Minors especially.

I've looked up Coppock's book before. It seems to be self-published and sold privately, priced at the mid-range of "moderate" for a limited-edition paperback. The description pegs it more as an astrology text than a tarot reference (all seven traditional planets are walked through all 36 decans), but as an astrologer I'm sure I would find it useful in that sense as well. Thanks for reminding me.
 

Spiffo

I've looked up Coppock's book before. It seems to be self-published and sold privately, priced at the mid-range of "moderate" for a limited-edition paperback. The description pegs it more as an astrology text than a tarot reference (all seven traditional planets are walked through all 36 decans), but as an astrologer I'm sure I would find it useful in that sense as well. Thanks for reminding me.

I got mine from the publisher. With postage to Oz it turned it into an expensive buy, but it turned out to be worth every penny.

X
 

G6

Susie's book will be out next year. Until then ...

The thing about the correspondences is, that you have to have some interest in not only the actual correspondence but what is corresponded too. So, for instance, if you have some interest, and knowledge of Astrology (or are prepared to learn the basics) you could start with the standard Golden Dawn (GD) correspondences and then see how they work for your readings and Tarot work. Why do I mention the GD? Well IMO it's a good place to start. If one accepts that 'most' decks are based on the RWS then it kinda makes sense to use the GD. The other systems (Piobb, Balti, etc.) are often associated with specific decks, or styles of decks.

Getting into the Hebrew letters and the Kabbalah can be fascinating, and illuminating. If you have zero interest in Kabbalah though it would be a waste of time and energy. I myself have absolutely no interest in what card correspond to what Herb, but there are many that do and then utilise that knowledge for spell work and (I'm guessing) woohoo cooking.

Now there are some who argue (often convincingly) that correspondences are a load of horse-doodoo. I heard a chap recently incinerated a RWS deck live on Facebook to make a point that his return to TdM decks was a liberation, and burning the RWS and all its links to the GD and its myriad correspondences was akin to burning a bra in the 60s. Let's not get into the OTT nature of that event, or the fact it was a chap invoking a feminist image.

So what decks do you use or have a preference for? That could well determine at least a starting point. If indeed your initial interest should commence with the GD, here is a nice, clear, straightforward set of the basic correspondences (Astro is at the bottom of the page):

http://www.billheidrick.com/works/tarottbl.htm

Ravenest has a lovely turn of phrase, and I think he's spot on; for me, being terribly myopic, it's like looking at a card with my glasses-less fuzzy-focus eyes, as opposed to seeing it all in sharp clear focus.

Re Barleywine: I've still not got my head around the I Ching links. To my knowledge the sadly departed Mithros is the only deck designer who attempted it with his deck The Mutational Tarot. I'm a babe in the woods with it but his justifications and logic are hard to fault. Mind you there are some leaps of faith to take with it. Either way it's a provocative deck and a fine effort.

Stephen Skinner's book, "The Complete Magician's Tables" (Llewellyn, USA, 2008, ISBN 9780738711645) is a weighty attempt to collect all manner of correspondences and 'stuff'. It might be overkill for your purposes, but I highly recommend it. There are others but I think Stephen's book is the most comprehensive, and he's very upfront about his own prejudices and reasonings.

That's a nice link. Thanks for all the info. Most of my decks are RWS. I Just got some Marseille decks; I have a Thoth and I am thinking about Tabula Mundi and Tarot of the Holy Light. I guess I'm dabbling or bored with RWS.
 

G6

Thanks for the mention of Skinner's book. I have a few of his but not that one.

As far as approaching correspondences as a novice, I would start with "occult number theory" (not numerology of the "your lucky number" variety) by checking out Pythagoras, Iamblichus and others, even Agrippa (but he tended to wrap religion around his ideas, probably as camouflage). If you really want to "go deep" with it (isomorphs and such), Joseph Maxwell will take you there. Every deck partakes of number, so every deck is approachable in this way.

Second in my book would be the classical elements, which we all know already as "suits," but it can be extended to trump cards as well. This also can be applied fairly uniformly to most decks. You could go all the way back to Empedocles to find the root of the concept.

Astrological correspondences are probably best attacked from the Golden Dawn perspective since they had the most fully-realized (although still imperfect as I see it) conceptual model. I find their use of the Chaldean decans to be especially valuable. Corrine Kenner's Tarot and Astrology adheres closely to the GD model and is easy to assimilate (although more convincing in its astrology than its tarot aspects).

The Tree of Life stuff is worthwhile from a more abstract angle, and is an entire study on its own. Robert Wang's book The Qabalistic Tarot is a good starting point, although I understand Lon Milo DuQuette's more recent books are good as well. (I only have his Thoth guide.) I sometimes find inspiration in the names of the Hebrew letters and their connection with the Major Arcana, but it's not 100%.

Color symbolism at a basic level has occasional usefulness, but not all decks apply any kind of coherent systematic approach to it. Red as Fire, Blue as Water, Yellow as Air and Green as Earth (although I like some "brown-ness" to it) are fairly common and follow the elemental outline for the most part. The Golden Dawn had an elaborate methodology for this as well (King Scale, Queen Scale, etc.), but it hasn't made a huge impression on me for the purposes of reading the cards; basic seems best in that sense.

Thanks for all the references, BW.
 

Aeon418

With correspondences added its like walking into the room and seeing everything associated with that card.
I tend to see the cards as a visual expression of the primary correspondences, not mere associations.

The secondary tier of correspondences are of lesser or no importance at all with regard to Tarot reading. They only 'correspond' because they are associated with the same section of the Tree and are therefore catalogued together.

DuQuette's deck is a good example. It's an admirable pictorial representation of the primary correspondences. But much of the other stuff on the cards is somewhat extraneous to Tarot reading. However it does make the deck a great magical 'crib sheet' if you intend to use it for purposes other than reading.
 

G6

I tend to see the cards as a visual expression of the primary correspondences, not mere associations.

The secondary tier of correspondences are of lesser or no importance at all with regard to Tarot reading. They only 'correspond' because they are associated with the same section of the Tree and are therefore catalogued together.

DuQuette's deck is a good example. It's an admirable pictorial representation of the primary correspondences. But much of the other stuff on the cards is somewhat extraneous to Tarot reading. However it does make the deck a great magical 'crib sheet' if you intend to use it for purposes other than reading.

Which DuQuette deck? This one?

http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/ceremonial-magick/

Does seem like a study deck.
 

ravenest

You have to know the correspondences first though, so which ones did you learn and how did you go about it?

Thoth .... they were printed on the cards ;)

Later I learnt a greater field of correspondences ( re 777 ) in about 18 main fields, I went about that by first, listing them and having a study sheet, by relating them all through the key of the Tarot (which I already knew ) and on a long walk I used to take, with 'memory loci'
 

ravenest

I tend to see the cards as a visual expression of the primary correspondences, not mere associations.

Okay . But this sorta reads like you thought I was making the tarot cards 'mere associations' to correspondences .... or something ?

"With correspondences added its like walking into the room and seeing everything associated with that card." - the 'associations' (for want of a better word ) are TO the cards ... I wasnt saying the cards are mere associations to the correspondences , if that is what you meant - not sure ?


The secondary tier of correspondences are of lesser or no importance at all with regard to Tarot reading. They only 'correspond' because they are associated with the same section of the Tree and are therefore catalogued together.

Okay then . perhaps you read some things into my brief answer ? The one above reveals a bit more.

First I learnt the basic tarot correspondences off the cards, to help in tarot - then I learnt a wider range of of them, for 'magical purposes' let's say . In any case I now see greater value in having a wider range of correspondences than any 'tarot primaries' due to the whole reason for having correspondences in the first place ! I am sure you know what I mean here .

DuQuette's deck is a good example. It's an admirable pictorial representation of the primary correspondences. But much of the other stuff on the cards is somewhat extraneous to Tarot reading. However it does make the deck a great magical 'crib sheet' if you intend to use it for purposes other than reading.

Yes. Also 'realising' the greater field of correspondences to 'everything' , not just for using tarot, a part of 'magical perception' and training . However, as I am a visual learner, and I already knew the tarot arrangement, I used the tarot as the 'key' to 'add' the other correspondences to., mostly, sometimes astrology ; eg. I primarily work through astrology first for the association of metals as I am more familiar with that.

I thought at sometime I had put up a paper here about that .... probably in the back room covered by cobwebs by now.

... basically, the wider field of correspondences is not just for tarot , its for an understanding of life the universe and everything ; eg. some dynamics postulated in quantum physics * may relate to some of the patterns and divisions in correspondences , this is good to discover for a greater understanding of how things are 'put together' ... but I would not be bringing that into a tarot reading.

* eg. we live in 3 physical (and not 'ideal' ) dimensions, to see 'down into matter' 'beyond this veil' ( 'viewing' or 'imagining' the sub-atomic ) there are said to be another 7 dimensions, with an another level that somehow interacts, some say its there , others mmmhe , making 10 all up, or 11. Which is the basic arrangement of ToL in reverse ( basic M theory , Supersymmetry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory#Number_of_dimensions )

.... one of the the basic pattern seems the 3 4 12 .