Aeclectic Tarot
Tarot Cards & Reviews Free Tarot Readings Tarot Books Tarot Card Meanings Forum Archive

New at Trionfi.com

  > Aeclectic Tarot Forum > Tarot Special Interest > Tarot History & Development


 
Huck  Huck is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 02 Jul 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,682
Huck 
Citizen
Trionfi.com proudly presents:


"The Name Trionfi in Context to playing cards (1441 - 1463)"

Still "under development" as usual at Trionfi.com, but already good enough to show it to friends.

Done by Ross Caldwell / autorbis

Some might it consider as boring. But it's essential to know, what one is talking about. And these are the major documents, which determine the theories about early Tarot (beside the known cards of course).

http://trionfi.com/0/e/01/
 Need help? Get your live Tarot Reading now      Top   #1
Ross G Caldwell's Avatar
Ross G Caldwell  Ross G Caldwell is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 07 Jul 2003
Location: Béziers, France
Posts: 2,649
Ross G Caldwell 
Citizen

Ross G Caldwell's Avatar

Thanks for the shout out Huck!

Since I'm partly responsible, I should note that my knowledge of Italian is through personal study only, and therefore my Italian translations are bound to have flaws, for the correction of which I will have great appreciation.

These represent *every* occurence of the phrase "carte da trionfi" (or cartexelle de trionfi), or "trionfi" and "trionfo" in the clear context of card games. They cover, at this point, the years 1442-c. 1471, from the first mention of "carte da trionfi" in Ferrara to Polismagna's translation of Decembrio's "Life of Filippo Maria Visconti" (also in Ferrara), sometime before 1471. Thus 28 references in about 30 years, from six locations - (but over 80 per cent relating directly to Ferrara).

Ross
 Need help? Get your live Tarot Reading now      Top   #2
Huck  Huck is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 02 Jul 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,682
Huck 
Citizen

Perhaps I should give some more informations.

Dokument 01 and 02 are very importan, they fix the date for the Trionfi-game to the year 1442.

Then there is a pause of 7 years, when Trionfi-decks are not mentioned.
Then, in Dokument 03, 04, 05, 06, 07 and 08 the name Trionfi is mentioned 6 times at 5 different places in short time (1449 - 1452): Marcello-letter, Sforza-letter, Florence, Ferrara and Malatesta-letter in context to production in Cremona. This reads as "farspread", however, some of the documents, Marcello-letter, Sforza-letter and Malatesta-letter indicate a rareness of the deck (in contrary to that the Florence note indicates: it's common).

This might be read as: Trionfi invented in Ferrara 1442, but at first no great interest till 1449, then increasing interest to the state, that everybody wishes to have one.
The following entries are less interesting, it's interesting, that most of the documents are only from Ferrara. In 1454 they even have a small manfactory at the court, however, with not much production (4 entries, 3 from 1454 and one from 1459 do relate to that.
In 1457, document 16, the note appears, that a Trionfi-deck has 70 cards. That's very important for the 5x14-theory. It means (probably), that decks with 4x14 + 22 didn't exist at that time - at least, there is no reason to assume that, any document is missing.

http://trionfi.com/0/e/02/
http://trionfi.com/0/e/03/
http://trionfi.com/0/e/04/
http://trionfi.com/0/e/05/
http://trionfi.com/0/e/06/
http://trionfi.com/0/e/07/
http://trionfi.com/0/e/08/
http://trionfi.com/0/e/16/
 Need help? Get your live Tarot Reading now      Top   #3
jmd's Avatar
jmd  jmd is offline
fourhares
 
Join Date: 05 Aug 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,502
jmd 
fourhares

jmd's Avatar

Great to have these references placed together! This is the kind of information one seeks at various times, and wonderful to add to as new material comes to light.

From this, it seems certainly to lead to the position that Trionfi cards, à la Visconti-Sforza, have their date in the 1440s.

Part of the other historical research which remains to be answered is whether these form the earliest of Tarot-like cards produced (decks which include Major arcana - and thus not just Mamluk-type).

Again of interest is the paper-manufactoring and printing which occured in Spain a couple of centuries earlier, and the rich proto-renaissance which occured there and in the Provençal region prior to the wonderful and full blossoming Florentine flower...

I do think that we all remain so deeply grateful for the work which so few have placed at the hands of so many...
 Need help? Get your live Tarot Reading now      Top   #4
Huck  Huck is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 02 Jul 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,682
Huck 
Citizen

Quote:
Originally posted by jmd
Great to have these references placed together! This is the kind of information one seeks at various times, and wonderful to add to as new material comes to light.

From this, it seems certainly to lead to the position that Trionfi cards, à la Visconti-Sforza, have their date in the 1440s.
There is no great doubt about that, although a suggestion exists, that the Cary-Yale was done 1468 at the wedding of Galeazzo. The question is how many trumps they had.

1. Brera-Brambilla (before 1447): possibly only four
2. Cary-Yale (before 1447): possibly 16 as part of a 5x16-deck

see: http://www.geocities.com/autorbis/VMnew.html

3. Bembo-cards (after 1450): 14 as part of a 5x14-deck.

see: http://www.geocities.com/autorbis/pbm14new.html

Quote:
Part of the other historical research which remains to be answered is whether these form the earliest of Tarot-like cards produced (decks which include Major arcana - and thus not just Mamluk-type).
From Dokument 03 (Marcello) we can see, that the early trumps could be creatively quite different, cause he called the 16 gods of the Michelino deck a "ludus triumphorum". But later they could also be quite different: Boiardo-deck, see:

http://www.geocities.com/autorbis/boiardo.htm
and
http://www.geocities.com/autorbis/boiardo-bio.html

and Sola-Busca-Tarocchi (Kaplan I), also others like Guildhall and Goldschmidt (also Kaplan I).

But we can also perceive, that the 14 Bembo-cards were already near to that, what later became standard, not only in the motifs, but even in aspects of numerology. With the 14 cards of Bembo the later Tarot-de-Marseille was nearly 2/3 ready (with differences in iconography, okay) - the missing 6 or 8 cards were a relatively unimportant addition, just filling free places.

Quote:
Again of interest is the paper-manufactoring and printing which occured in Spain a couple of centuries earlier, and the rich proto-renaissance which occured there and in the Provençal region prior to the wonderful and full blossoming Florentine flower...).
??? Printing in Spain a couple of centuries earlier? You must explain that. Early paper mills in Spain is okay, but printing?

Quote:
I do think that we all remain so deeply grateful for the work which so few have placed at the hands of so many... [/B]
Thanks for the kind words.

But autorbis would say, there is still plenty to do - if anybody desires to earn a little bit of Tarot-immortality ... in LTarot@yahoogroups we wait for such interests ... :-)
 Need help? Get your live Tarot Reading now      Top   #5
jmd's Avatar
jmd  jmd is offline
fourhares
 
Join Date: 05 Aug 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,502
jmd 
fourhares

jmd's Avatar

The 'printing' comment I made comes from some research I read a while back on some of the manuscripts (made by hand) on Alchemical and astrological texts, in which, apparently, woodcuts were used for the reproduction of certain depictions - hence proper printing, though not of the printing press variety.

I'll see if I can dig up the reference, though I suspect it came from a chapter in the Islamic section of Peter Marshall's The Philosopher's Stone: a quest for the secrets of Alchemy - I'll try to find it and post at a later date.

It is, in fact, some of the work and flowering of this earlier period in the Spanish/Provençal region, rich also in Kabalistic development and Christian (in its various guises) imagery which makes me lean to this region for earlier proto-tarot origins.

This, combined with the analysis of the Marseilles-type decks by Filipas, is quite suggestive. Nonetheless, and as has been mentioned before, this does not mean that as a full-blown 78 card deck with the divisions and images we have more or less standardised come precisely from that time or region. I see the earlier developments as important as the ones which arise in Northern Italy.

In many ways, I see the Marseille style (irrespective as to whether the style was first developed in the Marseille region) as the ultimate Ür-Tarot... deviate too far, and decks which resemble, but are not, Tarot, develop... but this now deviates too far from this wonderful reference of a thread!
 Need help? Get your live Tarot Reading now      Top   #6
Huck  Huck is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 02 Jul 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,682
Huck 
Citizen
autorbis: 6 entries (1449 - 1452)


autorbis gave me the allowance to transfer a recent post from him. I've added some links for better understanding.

Autorbis:

"Hi,

here are some remarks:

a. We've 2 documents of Trionfi in 1442 (Ferrara)

b. We've 0 documents of Trionfi in 1443 - 1448

c. We've 6 documents of Trionfi in 1449 - 1452
(from 5 different places)

d. We've 20 documents of Trionfi in 1453 - 1463
(1 entry from Bologna, 19 from Ferrara)

(compare: http://geocities.com/research_of_tarot/tri01)

I evaluate these data in the following way: A thing has a good chance to be mentioned somewhere, when it is new. So the later missing of Trionfi-notes outside of Ferrara is "naturally", Trionfi was then "not new".
The entries from Ferrara one should exclude for this moment from this consideration, because there was a steady production of Trionfi-notes - cause the account books in Ferrara.

Then there are:

1449 Marcello
1450 Milano (Sforza)
1450 Florence
1452 Malatesta (Rimini - Sforza (Milano)

1459 Bologna

compare: http://geocities.com/research_of_tarot/tri03
compare: http://geocities.com/research_of_tarot/tri05
compare: http://geocities.com/research_of_tarot/tri06
compare: http://geocities.com/research_of_tarot/tri08

compare: http://geocities.com/research_of_tarot/tri20

There is a clear peak of events in the years 1449 - 1452.

From this I take the hypothesis, that Trionfi is new to most people in Italy in this time. On the basis of this hypothesis I take a near look at the documents, if I can find something inside, which contradicts, or something, which supports:

1449: Scipio Caraffa (appears in Marcellos letter) doesn't know the game (this suggests, that the deck-type is new). Marcello already knows it. Marcello is from Venetia/Padua, if one assumes, that the game spread from Ferrara (near Venetia), his acquaintaince with the new sort of deck is explainable.

He's looking for manufacturers, who could produce a deck (it seems, he knows more than one, but it is unclear, if this are just manufacturers for normal playing cards, who could also do Tarot cards, if necessary).

New or not new? This entry suggests, that there is already some acquaintance with the deck, but it might be a "local condition".

compare: http://www.geocities.com/autorbis/Marcello12.html

1450 (Sforza): In Sforzas letters it seems, that the great duke with all his possibilities has obviously problems to get a simple trionfi deck. He's in Lodi (somewhere on the country), not in Milano. It seems, there is no deck on the country, but possibly in Milano.

New or not new? It seems clear: In Milano are not many Trionfi decks.

1450 (Florence): A statute allows Trionfi and some other games, after the late 40ies seemed to have been a time of stronger card prohibition than before.

A man from Florence said to me: "In Florence all things were earlier than everywhere else, there was more creativity". A statute signals a broad stream of Trionfi cards - in Florence.

But let's look precisely at the situation of 1449 - 1450:

compare:
http://www.geocities.com/autorbis/Florenzcards2.html
http://www.geocities.com/autorbis/pr...iontheory.html

Nov. 1449: Marcello writes his letter.
The political situation is very critical - all eyes watch Milano. Sforza tries to capture the city. There is famine in the city. Some thousand people will die soon, before Sforza is successfull (Feb./March). Venetia tries to intervene, but it doesn't work. Florence is happy after Sforza's victory (Cosimo had helped Sforza, now there is a new alliance possible, where 25 years had been only war).
Before Milano had a political experiment: trying to become a republic 3 long years, getting rid of a reigning duke. If the experiment would have had been successful, then Milano would have been the 3rd great republic of Italy beside Florence and Venetia. Under this condition other smaller cities would have thrown away their reigning nobility soon and the whole course of renaissance might have become rather revolutionary. This didn't happen.

The anarchical state, that accompanies political changes, gave Sforza the opportunity to seize the power.

In the year 1450 soon a plague reached Milano. 30 000 - 60 000 people (!) died in Milano. Probably that's the reason, why Sforza is not in Milano, but in Lodi. And the relatively chaotic conditions in the city:

death of Fillipo, the funeral ended in an upraising
3 years Ambrosian repulic
with a 1/2 year siege + famine + victory of Sforza
+ plague later

result in the condition: difficulties to get a Trionfi deck in Milano. The city is still a little chaotic in this year.

The plague was not only regional, but I've no data, if Florence was involved. In times of the plague games had a great chance - see Decamerone.
In Florence is in the late 40ies strong "playing card prohibition". Perhaps with the success of Sforza in Milano the general context demands "more liberal laws", so we have a release for players. Perhaps the plague and the play during the plague took an influence.
And Florence is a place, where people reacted quickly: In 1377 Florence was the first city, that prohibited cards.
Trionfi might be new in Florence, although the statute signals: it is well known.

1452: Malatesta writes to the Sforzas, if he could have a connection to the trionfi producers in Cremona.
This means: Malatesta - probably at that time in Rimini, far away (that's not sure)- invests considerable engagement to get such a deck. This he probably wouldn't do, if the Trionfi were reachable all and everywhere.
Local condition in Rimini: no trionfi reachable or at least no quality trionfi deck reachable. Or Malatesta is a card gatherer, another possibility.
Local condition in Milano: The Sforzas seem to have solved their card problem.
New oder not new? This story tells, that Trionfi are relatively new, still.

And now to Ferrara: although in the years 1450 - 1463 there is constantly something about Trionfi noted in Ferrara (21 notes in 14 years), there is NOTHING between 1442 - 1449.

Looking precisely at the first 2 entries from Ferrara 1442: Dokument 2 speaks of a deck for two boys, 9 and 11 years old.

Conclusion out of these contexts: The very early Trionfi isn't taken serious by adult players and stayed as toys for younger humans. The court of Leonello (1442 - 1450) didn't show great interest.

A subground stream leads from the Ferrarese situation in 1442 to a situation in 1449/1450, where some trionfi decks exist, but this kind of play is not known everywhere and not existent in great number.

I guess, my hypothesis at the beginning got more support than contradiction.

Ferrara 1442 is worth another evaluation, but not now."

Letter of autorbis ends.

To Ferrara 1442 compare:
http://www.geocities.com/autorbis/ferrara.html
(in preparation)
 Need help? Get your live Tarot Reading now      Top   #7
Ross G Caldwell's Avatar
Ross G Caldwell  Ross G Caldwell is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 07 Jul 2003
Location: Béziers, France
Posts: 2,649
Ross G Caldwell 
Citizen

Ross G Caldwell's Avatar
reply to autorbis


Very interesting considerations.

>a. We've 2 documents of Trionfi in 1442 (Ferrara)
>
>b. We've 0 documents of Trionfi in 1443 - 1448
>
>c. We've 6 documents of Trionfi in 1449 - 1452
> (from 5 different places)
>
>d. We've 20 documents of Trionfi in 1453 - 1463
> (1 entry from Bologna, 19 from Ferrara)
>
>I evaluate these data in the following way: A thing
>has a good chance to be mentioned somewhere, when it
>is new. So the later missing of Trionfi-notes outside
>of Ferrara is "naturally", Trionfi wasn't then not
>new.

Additionally, although the earliest entry (Feb. 10 1442) describes carte da
trionfi as 4 suits and "figures", it doesn't go into any more detail of the
composition of the pack. But the pack is never described this way again.
This could mean it is new - new enough that it had to be described.


>Then there are:
>
>1449 Marcello
>1450 Milano (Sforza)
>1450 Florence
>1452 Malatesta (Rimini - Sforza (Milano)

I'll have to check where Sigismondo was at this time.

>
>1459 Bologna
>
>There is a clear peak of events in the years 1449 -
>1452.
>
>From this I take the hypothesis, that Trionfi is new
>to most people in Italy in this time. On the basis of
>this hypothesis I take a near look at the documents,
>if I can find something inside, which contradicts or
>something, which supports:
>
>1449: Scipio Caraffa (appears in Marcellos
>letter)doesn't know the game (this suggests, that the
>deck-type is new). Marcello already knows it. Marcello
>is from Venetia/Padua, if one assumes, that
>the game spread from Ferrara (near Venetia), his
>acquaintaince with the new sort of deck is
>explainable.

Sounds reasonable. But doesn't Marcello also say a "new kind of triumphs"
(speaking of Filippo's old deck)? This means there is another kind, more
familiar.

>
>He's looking for manufacturers, who could produce a
>deck (it seems, he knows more than one, but it is
>unclear, if this are just manufacturers for playing
>cards, who could also do Tarot cards, if necessary).

With a painted deck, you needed the right paper, the right paints, and a
good miniature painter. Three or more people sometimes. We can also expect
that the painters must have had an example to copy. If there were few decks,
which seems to be the case, there would seem to be little chance of being
many places of production. So the Ferrara production, which in 1454 produced
11 decks in 2 months and 20 days, must have been exceptional. Perhaps the
reason it went out of business is because the Cremona center, with Bembo,
really picked up.

In another case, we could suspect printed-painted decks. If the artists used
a printed deck as a model sometimes, we would expect real uniformity. But
everyone admired Bembo's deck, which was copied frequently - perhaps it is
this style that Sigismondo was after.

But we might also ask, if the deck was rare, and an artist was asked to make
a pack with no model, he might produce any kind of triumphs - but knowing
that they included things like a Chariot (the Victor), the Petrarchan
themes, etc.

It really could be that the "triumphs" were added to the Imperadori, to make
an "all-purpose deck", from which you could remove various cards for the
different games. Finally, someone made a game with all the cards, which is
when they put numbers on them.

>
>New or not new? This entry suggests, that there is
>already some acquaintance with the deck, but it might
>be a "local condition".
>
>1450 (Sforza): In Sforzas letter it seems, that the
>great duke with all his possibilities has obviously
>problems to get a simple trionfi deck. He's in Lodi
>(somewhere on the country), not in Milano. It seems,
>there is no deck on the country, but possibly in
>Milano.

Okay.

>
>New or not new? It seems clear: In Milano are not many
>Trionfi decks.

Or he did not want to risk going to get one there, with the plague. But in
general it seems that Cremona was the place. It is never said that Sforza
got a pack from Ferrara, although he got other things, even painted heraldic
devices from Gerardo da Vicenza. So it could be reasoned that production was
a thing of pride for the artist concerned, and the artist made sure his
patron did not go to another.
This also implies that the deck was new for Sigismondo, since he must not
have had a model already, for one of his artists to copy.

So trionfi production was a specialization. We cannot assume, that the deck
was everywhere and everybody was making copies - even printed. If a printed
deck were available, why would Sigismondo write to Bianca Maria, who hated
him, asking for a deck. Why not scour the region, get a cheap printed deck,
and have an artist make a nice sumptuous luxury deck? Again, there cannot
have been many around.

>
>1450 (Florence): A statute allows Trionfi and some
>other games after the late 40ies seemed to have been a
>time of stronger card prohibition than before.
>
>A man from Florence said to me: "In Florence all
>things were earlier than everywhere else, there was
>more creativity". A statute signals a broad stream of
>Trionfi cards - in Florence.

Of course he will say that - he's Florentine. Maybe it is the other way -
the deck went to Florence, and *then* they decided to outdo everybody by
making a bigger trionfi deck, the Minchiate. It would be the biggest deck
around, well expressing Florentine pride. But nothing suggests to me that
they had it first.

I also do not follow Franco's logic, why the law of 1450 suggests the game
was "well-known". Perhaps simply known, and known not to be a game of pure
chance. But doesn't the fact that the law is only in 1450, suggest that it
was only a little before that the game became known? If it existed before in
Florence, why no record of it? Why no bans, in the bad days? So it showed up
recently, and became allowed.

>
>But let's look precisely at the situation of 1449 -
>1450:
>>result in the condition: difficulties to get a Trionfi
>deck in Milano. The city is still a little chaotic in
>this year.

Yes. It went to Cremona - on the Po (unlike Pavia), and between Ferrara and
Milan.

>
>The plague was not only regional, but I've no data, if
>Florence was involved. In times of the plague games
>had a great chance - see Decamerone.
>In Florence is in the late 40ies strong "playing card
>prohibition". Perhaps with the success of Sforza in
>Milano the general context demands "more liberal
>laws", so we have a release for players. Perhaps the
>plague and the play during the plague took an
>influence.
>And Florence is a place, where people reacted quickly:
>In 1377 Florence was the first city, that prohibited
>cards.
>Trionfi might be new in Florence, although the statute
>signals: it is well known.

I don't know why "well-known" - how was such a statute published? Did they
make copies and send them out, post them around the city, etc.? Simply known
enough is good for me - "this new game, trionfo, is alright. You may play
it." Why does the statute mean widely known, or around for awhile?

>
>1452: Malatesta writes to the Sforzas, if he could
>have a connection to the trionfi producers in Cremona.
>This means: Malatesta - probably at that time in
>Rimini, far away (that's not sure)- invests
>considerable engagement to get such a deck. This he
>probably wouldn't do, if the Trionfi were reachable
>all and everywhere.

Right. And think too, if the theory that the original deck was printed, and
courts took it and made luxury versions, why couldn't Sigismondo do the
same? So it seems, it is a courtly production, a courtly style. And
Sigismondo was "out of the loop". Ferrara must not have liked him either.
For obvious reasons, I guess.

>>
>And now to Ferrara: although in the years 1450 - 1463
>there is constantly something about Trionfi noted in
>Ferrara, there is NOTHING between 1442 - 1449.

Right. We could expect it, but there is none. This gap is surely
significant. Can we think, that after producing a luxury deck, the court
then went for 6-7 years with cheap printed decks, and only in 1449 started
to ask for painted decks again? It is more reasonable to think that no decks
were made at all.

>
>Looking precisely at the first 2 entries from Ferrara
>1442: Dokument 2 speaks of a deck for two boys, 9 and
>11 years old.
>
>Conclusion out of these contexts: The very early
>Trionfi isn't taken serious by adult players and
>stayed as toys for younger humans. The court of
>Leonello (1442 - 1450) didn't show great interest.

But the first entry says - for the use of the Signore=Leonello. Did he then
give it to the boys to play with? I don't think so. It meant something to him,
but never did become popular. But Borso grows up, and loves trionfi. In his
days, the production takes off. So we know Borso played, and surely played
in the 40s, when none were made in the court. Would he have revived a dead
game, or decided to paint luxury decks again after playing with printed
decks?

>
>A subground stream leads from the Ferrarese situation
>in 1442 - to a situation in 1449/1450, where some
>trionfi decks exist, but this kind of play is not
>known everywhere and not existent in great number.
>
>I guess, my hypothesis at the beginning got more
>support than contradiction.

I would say so. The facts might be spotty, but they do seem to point to a
condition where there are not many trionfi decks around, and not many people
who know how to play. I think this rules out the idea that printed trionfi
decks were produced in huge quantities in the 40s.

>
>Ferrara 1442 is worth another evaluation, but not now.
>

What do you mean?

Ross
 Need help? Get your live Tarot Reading now      Top   #8
Huck  Huck is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 02 Jul 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,682
Huck 
Citizen

Hi,

http://trionfi.com

has changed its outfit (although still under development).

The point "Documents" has expanded (although still under development). Direct:

http://trionfi.com/01/e

Especially new is Ross Caldwells work about the Gringonneur case, hidden under:

"Actions in Paris and France - Focus on French notes"


The point "Game" has made a start:

http://trionfi.com/01/l

with links to many sources, which reflect the world, in which Tarot or Tarock is NOT a tool of divination, but an interesting card-game (with thanks to Jim Wickson, who gathered the links).

I hope, anybody is well.

Huck
 Need help? Get your live Tarot Reading now      Top   #9
moon_mermaid's Avatar
moon_mermaid  moon_mermaid is offline
Resident
 
Join Date: 27 Mar 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 72
moon_mermaid 
Resident

moon_mermaid's Avatar
Thumbs up Bravo!


Thanks for sharing your research. To be honest, I have never studied medieval history, so it is really a pain in the neck when I read the historical threads. I just get all the ??? Sigh.

This site is really wonderful, it makes thing more clearer to me. I like the way the documents are written, human and easy to understand. Just I need to share the computer with my brother, so I cannot linger long enough on this site. Another sigh.

A bow to all wonderful and intelligent contributors to the site.

moon_mermaid
 Need help? Get your live Tarot Reading now      Top   #10
 


 


Tarot Cards & Reviews Free Tarot Readings Tarot Books Tarot Card Meanings Forum Archive
Aeclectic Tarot Forum Links
· Tarot
· Tarot Special Interest
· Beyond Tarot
· Forum Library

Aeclectic Tarot Categories
· Angel Decks
· Dark & Gothic Decks
· Goddess Decks
· Fairy Decks
· Doreen Virtue Decks
· Beginner Decks
· Cat Decks
· Pagan & Wiccan Decks
· Ancient Egyptian Decks
· Celtic Decks
· Lenormand Decks
· Rider-Waite Decks
· Marseilles Decks
· Thoth Decks
· Oracle Decks
· List All Decks
· Popular Tarot Decks
· Available Decks
· Tarot Books
· What's New

The Aeclectic Tarot Forum closed permanently on July 14th, 2017. The public threads remain online as a read-only archive and resource. More information on our decision can be found here. Thank you for being a part of our active community over the past seventeen years.

Copyright © 1996 - 2017 Aeclectic Tarot. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy. Contact us.