Interpreting Minors in Marseilles Decks

Just so that my last post does not give the impression that I in the least suggest using GD peculiar correlations with regards to interpreting the minor arcana in a Marseille deck (though of course some may do so if they find the Golden Dawn in any manner useful), I thought I would also add here some reflections as to why I do not use various methods others seem to prefer.

In a nutshell, by following a system (whether it be the GD's or my own - previously outlined in earlier threads), one begins to apply correlations which may not indeed properly reside within the card's imagery.

Understanding, or seeking to understand, why another system is used or may have developed is also, of course, useful, but again, if applied to the cards in a Marseille deck, brings forth elements which do not 'properly' belong to it - even if seemingly easier to someone who has for many years assumed a particular divinatory meaning to, for example, the ten of swords (a wonderful and full card of coming together of two swords within the quadruple depiction of the vesica piscis or 'almond-shape' centre).

If using any of the suggested numerological systems, or even systems of other correlations mentioned, one begins by unfortunately first going away from the card images themselves, and precipitates the cards' meanings by dipping them into the flavoured juices of those various studies. These other studies, incidentally, I would personally indeed suggest and encourage, but independently of Tarot, so as not to mar the latter in applying any of the apparent begotten fruits to the cards.

With regards to numerology, a rather simple geometrical depiction and reflection on the same yields much which may deepen one's understanding. Ie, draw in as many ways as possible the geometry of one, of two, of three, of four, ... up to and including ten.

Likewise, careful reflection with regards to simple arithmetic: which are the prime numbers, for example; or in how many ways could a number be adduced ?

Looking at the individual cards and, combining both methods mentioned in earlier posts: of looking carefully at all Aces, followed by all twos, followed by all threes,...

AND observing the progression within each suit - what changes, what remains the same, what gets omitted or transformed - for this also instructs what happens to those petals, leaves, stems... and suit design!

How does one begin to possibly interpret the cards, then?

In a specific reading, one's own background knowledge and acquired methods will of course come to the fore - as will the focus on whatever small detail one's eye is drawn to within a particular card - as will the seemingly unrelated promptings of the-still-small-voice-within (as some call it).

This thread is not, however, about interpreting when in the act of reading, but rather, I would suggest, about interpreting in the process of deepening one's understanding of the Minors - whether pips or courts - as they are depicted in the Marseille deck.

For this, I would suggest doing away with the equivalent to what Umbrae has previously suggested doing away with (mutatis mutandis): in his case, the 'little white books', with their convenient but narrowing dimensions; in our case, with GD and other systems overlayed upon the simple but ever so complex imagery of the cards as given.

For me, ideally a primary reference point in interpreting the minors (numbered minors and court cards) is the imagery. Using any overlay as one's principal interpretative technique -- be it Golden Dawn or Etteilla system, MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Inventory) for the court cards, or strict numerology + suit -- arguably takes away from using the Marseilles cards. One may as well use playing cards or modern-day French tarocchi cards, instead of Marseilles cards. That said, I find it easier oftentimes to use number + suit as a primary basis for interpreting Marseilles numbered minors.

As you ask 'jmd ... I'm curious how what you're saying against using overlays of other systems ties in with one using MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Inventory) as their principal technique in interpreting antique tarot court cards'...

... hence why I wrote (as my second paragraph):

• 'In a nutshell, by following a system (whether it be the GD's or my own - previously outlined in earlier threads), one begins to apply correlations which may not indeed properly reside within the card's imagery.

On the other hand, one may investigate each and every 'system' - and that, to my mind, all the better if independently of Tarot.

With specific regards to the MBTI, it should also be remembered that it is based on the four temperaments (not as regards to their presumed causal connections to bodily fluids, but as psychological types), further simplified to the four elements as variously interacting.

I would not here suggest, of course, initially beginning with such correlations, but rather to begin to observe the cards in their imagery.

Concomitant study into the four elements - whether as understood in the middle ages, late antiquity or ancient Greece - and the four classes of humanity (serfs, the church hierarchy, the nobility and the merchants), together with their various positions within their 'class', yields more appropriate image-connected understanding.

jmd said:

If using any of the suggested numerological systems, or even systems of other correlations mentioned, one begins by unfortunately first going away from the card images themselves, and precipitates the cards' meanings by dipping them into the flavoured juices of those various studies. These other studies, incidentally, I would personally indeed suggest and encourage, but independently of Tarot, so as not to mar the latter in applying any of the apparent begotten fruits to the cards.

With regards to numerology, a rather simple geometrical depiction and reflection on the same yields much which may deepen one's understanding. Ie, draw in as many ways as possible the geometry of one, of two, of three, of four, ... up to and including ten.

Click to expand...

Hi jmd, I'm a bit confused and perhaps you can help me out... I'm not quite sure I understand the distinction you're drawing in the two paragraphs I quoted, between "any of the suggested numerological systems," which you seem to frown on as applied to Tarot, and "a rather simple geometrical depiction," which you seem to encourage.

No matter how simple and geometrical such a depiction is, isn't it still a numerological system and thus going away from the card images themselves?

My point here is that any assignment of meaning of the pip cards is going to involve adding material to the images, unless one wants to use only what's on the images and nothing else, which I imagine would be rather dificult.

-- Lee

I'm not sure if the correct term is 'frown on', for the emotive connotations were certainly not there in my previous post.

With regards to the differences I was, perhaps not sufficiently clearly, attempting to distinguish is between an already achieved or given and assumed meaning to the numbers (again, whether the ones I personally hold or another's), and the investigations of the numbers as they are drawn and reflected upon for oneself. One may then get to a point with some similarities to what someone else has posited, or a different understanding may be reached.

With regards to, for example, the progression from the numbers one through to five, and reflecting on these simply - by, for example, what simple dots upon the surface of a sphere would do as they seek to maintain equal distance to other dot(s), quite remarkable achievements with regards to number can be achieved - quite remarkable insights may arise.

To illustrate just this example, here are some considerations:

A single point is 'free' to move wherever it pleases, and do what it pleases. Already with two, there is an opposition which results, so that the movement of one is constrained by a similar but inverted movement of the other. Also, as a result, a line or diameter in implicated.

With three, the points would arrange themselves as an equilateral triangle upon any 'longitudinal' arc, and the constraint of movement would further be such that any point would necessitate the movement of the other two in unison. Here, the second dimension, or plane, is also generated - a plane which bisects the sphere in two hemispheres. Whereas the two points provided the sphere, so to speak, with two pivotal points or poles, the three seems to suggest more the equatorial bulge.

With four, the points would arrange themselves as a tetrahedron (a three sided-pyramid). Four also provides for or indicates the simplest three-dimensional figure. Again, however, the constraints of movement are increased, for any point-movement necessitates a similar movement of the other three. Moving from 1 through to 4, we see an increased 'heaviness'.

With five, there is an opposite aspect which suddenly emerges, for the five points upon a sphere seeking equidistance can never achieve the same, leading to a dynamic release from fixity, or perpetual motion...

To continue the thought exercise up to ten (or more, of course!) leads to reflections on certain qualities with regards the numbers, without thereby assuming other qualities. For those interested, six would form an octahedron, seven be dynamic (but more constrained than five), eight form a cube, and nine and ten also display dynamic qualities.

Similar - or rather, different reflections - may also be reached by drawing regular polygons of increasing sides, and seeing in how many ways internal figures may be drawn. For example, a point is a point; two points make a line; with three, a triangle is formed, with no internal figure generated; with four, a square, with a diagonal cross is generated; with five, a pentagon with an internal pentagramme... which itself contains an inverted pentagon, which could thus generate another pentagramme (ad infinitum); &c..

With regards to addition or multiplication of numbers, one may be even more creative, for though 1 is 1, when we get to increased numerals, different ways emerge in which they can be considered: 6 is 1+2+3, but it is also 4+2, & also 2+1+1+1+1, &c.. With multiplications, what do the primes suggest (ie, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7) in distinction to the non-primes? and what of the 'perfect' number (only the 6 is perfect in relation to the numerals 1-10), or of square vs triangular vs fibonacci numbers ?

These are some of the considerations I would at first encourage, and even then as distinct to the imagery on the cards.

Then, careful observation as to how the cards are depicted. For example, looking at each two of the four suits, how are the (suit design only) arranged in relation to one another? The two cups are arranged horizontally, whereas the two Coins vertically. What does this suggest to reflection? Now, again with these two cards only, what of the non-suit depiction - what of the lemniscating ribbon upon the Coins and the flowering growth and 'dolphins' on the Cups - how do these specifically refer or indicate what comes before or after within each respective suit?

My point here is thus twofold: on the one hand, to reflect and consider on the 'quality' of the numbers in isolation of already interpreted meanings gleened from the numerological interpretative works of others; on the other, to carefully note for oneself the depictions as they arise on the individual cards.

Please note again that I do not suggest not also gaining an understanding as to the works of others (again, whether GD or my own peculiar ways which I obviously and personally find quite useful - eg, the MBTI & Courts), but that to begin with any of those other ready-made interpretative systems already somewhat 'locks' assumed meanings in those directions.

Reflecting carefully on the cards as depicted, in the specific orientations depicted, and our own individual differences between the sense we variously have for right and left, for vertical and horizontal, for crossed and parallel - all these emerge from re-configuring the card as depicted within one's own imaginative reflective capacities...

Buddhist numerology

To add to the continuing survey of numerological systems by Lee and myself, I'd like to add Buddhist numerology, as illustrated in the following interesting link:

http://www.khandro.net/about_numbers.htm

Rusty: if I had looked a little further I would of seen the answer to my question nearby! Thanks for directing me to this fascinating and helpful thread with all the answers I have been looking for and more. Hopefully I will get some proper time to read through this, too much too soon can be a little overload....

Lee, as usual, your wealth of info is mind boggling. I am happy you are a member here XTAX

Astro-Numerological Number Meanings

This, for example, are ones given by Kevin Quinn Avery in _The Numbers of Life: The Hidden Power of Numerology_, page 100:

1 - Positive Sun
2 - Positive Moon
3 - Jupiter
4 - Earth; Negative Sun
5 - Mercury
6 - Venus
7 - Neptune; Negative Moon
8 - Saturn
9 - Mars

Maybe the astrologers on our boards will be able to make sense of this and see if the meanings match up with modern numerology number meanings for 1 to 9.

I have tried to make sense of this system but I can't. Since I have so many questions, I'll write them here:

1) I keep finding different numerological meanings from different sources, where could I find some basic info?

2) Should I interpret the numbers from 1 to 22 or as someone stated, are the numbers larger than four somehow broken into pieces (if so, how)?

3) Is it good to associate the pips with the Majors and if so, how does this apply to courts?

4) I keep finding different meanings to suits, what are the basic meanings?


That's all for now, I am deeply grateful to anyone who answers these! I want to learn to use my Hadar but it is so hard to try to understand all the bits and pieces of info I've managed to copy and paste...

I'll address, in my own way, and in ways which will differ from the answers of others, each of those questions but briefly.

• Different systems

There are indeed various 'systems' which are used by various authors for the numerals (whether 1-10, or 1-0 & 11, 22 & 33).

In terms of the Tarot, I would suggest to think through instances of those numbers as they apply to life generally.

What does '1' or 'single' seem to imply? what about '2' or 'double'? '3' or 'triple' or 'third'? etc

• 'Breaking', combining or extending numbers

What some do is to reduce a multi-digit number as written in our standard numbering to a single one (for example, as '35' is written with the symbol for '3' and for '5', these are added as though they were those numbers, giving the numeral eight).

Others prefer to see to what number they can be extended, at times referred to as 'theosophic extension'. Such a system simply gives the triangle of a number (as opposed to its square). For example, 4 'extended' as such makes 10 (ie, if you have a base of four, and build upon it decreasing numbers of 3, then above that 2, and then 1, a total of ten in triangular form is formed - a similar procedure makes from four a square of sixteen, hence four squared is sixteen).

So it is not numbers above four which are altered by the various systems, but usually those which require more than a single digit.

• Association with the Majors &/or Courts

Personally, I do not advocate an association with the Major Arcana.

The six of Cups, as an example, has its own particular beauty and charm which a slow reflection may begin to unravel.

If you wanted to link pips to Majors, however, then you will find many do in fact also do this.

The Courts, according to some, may, in those systems, be allocated, respectively, the numbers 11, 12, 13 and 14 to the Pages, Knights, Queens and Kings. Whether you then decide to 'reduce' these to single digits, or correlate those to the Majors of those respective numbers is, in my personal view, taking away from the simple but eloquent imagery presented... but am certain that some do in fact just this.

• 'Basic' meanings to suits

Swords are swords, Cups are cups, Coins are coins, and Sticks are sticks...

But I'm sure that is not what you meant, yet I was not being in any way facetious.

If one reflects on what swords are, and to what purpose they serve(d), and who was permitted to carry the same, many 'basic' meanings will again begin to unfold. Likewise the other suits.

I am not here 'hiding' anything, rather, it is a matter of this reflection which is far more important than the interpretative meaning generated by someone else.

As to which elemental attributions may be made, there are nearly as many different attributions which have been made as there are possibilities. As an example, the suit of Swords has been, by different authors, 'properly', and with sound reasons, been attributed each of the four elements.
_____

Having said all this, I would strongly suggest, as I at times do, to reflect and note the various ways in which the cards are actually depicted, and sense what emerges as you sense into them.

This, to me, is far more important than the specific attributions made by another, who may either have done what I here suggest, or have, alternatively, superimposed an extraneous system to seek to understand what is already within the card.