New book - "Explaining the Tarot"

The crowned one

How did I miss this thread? I look for Ross's name on posts.

Book is ordered, really looking forward to this one!

I will make a library request too.
 

prudence

The crowned one said:
I will make a library request too.
I'll look into doing this too.
 

gregory

Got it. It's BEAUTIFULLY done !

(I've not READ it yet. I am over-run with very short people just now !!!)
 

DoctorArcanus

prudence said:
I just got mine today and am so happy that I ordered it. I went straight to page 42 to read "A Discourse on why game-playing and Tarot in particular, was invented". It is so far just what I was hoping it would be, (at least this particular section) in that it is fleshing out the images of the trumps, as well as the suits in a way that is historically based and so thoroughly described that I am not left with any holes in my understanding of an image.

My interest in this book, and my appetite for tarot history in general is fueled by the (probably foolish) desire to read the cards using historical decks and the historically based descriptions of the "characters" depicted within them. So, I just want to let others (who may not normally have any interest in tarot history) know that this book could be very helpful to those who want to explore reading with older decks while using some of these vivid descriptions to inform their narrative. It's really not just for the hard core history buffs, I can't stress that enough.

Thank you very much, Marco, Ross and Thierry.

PS I do of course realize that the tarot deck was created as a game. ;)

Hello Prudence,
thank you for your very interesting comment. I think I understand how those texts could be used for reading with history decks: they do associate a number of images to the suits and to the trumps :)

Ciao
Marco
 

Sophie

I just saw this thread - Ross, how fantastic! Well done! It sounds so interesting.

I had promised myself - no more books. But hey, I didn't know about this one when I made that promise :D. It sounds like an essential, like bread and wine.
 

Ross G Caldwell

Fudugazi said:
I just saw this thread - Ross, how fantastic! Well done! It sounds so interesting.

I had promised myself - no more books. But hey, I didn't know about this one when I made that promise :D. It sounds like an essential, like bread and wine.

I'm happy you saw it Sophie! I think the price is right, enough to slip under the "no more books" radar. It's also some primary texts, one never printed before in any language, so it ranks as essential for people reading history.

I trust you'll find Marco's schematic comparison chart helpful.

Ross
 

prudence

Ross, Marco, Thierry, are you taking any questions about the book?

If so, can the questions be asked here, in this thread, or should another one be created?
 

EnriqueEnriquez

Questions about “Explaining the Tarot”...

I have been enjoying very much “Explaining the Tarot” the translation of the tow earlier texts on the tarot we know, brought to us by Thierry de Paulis, Ross S. Caldwell and Marco Ponzi.

I did a short interview to Ross and Marco for my website, but I still have some more questions. I decided to post them here since I think it cold be interesting for other people to participate in the discussion and bring their own questions to the ‘table’.

Reading both, Piscina’s and Anonymous’s discourses, it seems to me that they have a very similar understanding of the four suits. The only suit in which they somehow diverge would be the suit of Batons. There is, still, a common idea of batons as scepters, symbols of power and control, and tools for chastising. But while Piscina would simply see them as primal weapons, less ‘evolved’ than swords, Anonymous links them to literature: “in order to represent their honour and greatness, the fact that only they could punish and castigate, they had macs brought ahead of them”. In a way, Piscina sees them as rough, while Anonymous sees them as symbols of a power -that of wisdom- that is more evolved than brute force.

The other three symbols, Cups, Coins and Swords, have quite straight-forward explanations, and I was wondering if the convolutedness* with the wands emerged from that alleged misreading of the Mameluks’s polo sticks we have hear about so many times.

Do you, Ross and Marco, have any thoughts on the matter?


Thanks in advance!


EE



* A convolutedness I very much appreciate and enjoy, BTW.
 

prudence

EnriqueEnriquez said:
I have been enjoying very much “Explaining the Tarot” the translation of the tow earlier texts on the tarot we know, brought to us by Thierry de Paulis, Ross S. Caldwell and Marco Ponzi.

I did a short interview to Ross and Marco for my website, but I still have some more questions. I decided to post them here since I think it cold be interesting for other people to participate in the discussion and bring their own questions to the ‘table’.

Reading both, Piscina’s and Anonymous’s discourses, it seems to me that they have a very similar understanding of the four suits. The only suit in which they somehow diverge would be the suit of Batons. There is, still, a common idea of batons as scepters, symbols of power and control, and tools for chastising. But while Piscina would simply see them as primal weapons, less ‘evolved’ than swords, Anonymous links them to literature: “in order to represent their honour and greatness, the fact that only they could punish and castigate, they had macs brought ahead of them”. In a way, Piscina sees them as rough, while Anonymous sees them as symbols of a power -that of wisdom- that is more evolved than brute force.

The other three symbols, Cups, Coins and Swords, have quite straight-forward explanations, and I was wondering if the convolutedness* with the wands emerged from that alleged misreading of the Mameluks’s polo sticks we have hear about so many times.

Do you, Ross and Marco, have any thoughts on the matter?


Thanks in advance!


EE



* A convolutedness I very much appreciate and enjoy, BTW.
I am glad you asked about this, EE. I was also struck by the connecting of maces/batons with wisdom, in the anonymous discourse.

I was wondering about this bit (on page 55 of the anonymous discourse)

"And because I run free-reined, along with a bunch of others, behind this fool that, turning his shoulders to us, and showing his bottom, makes fun of us, therefore I must laugh when I find myself needing a scudo, instead of being an absolute monarch. In the order, Prudence follows, then Strength." (bold added by me)

So, it's probably an unanswerable question, and I have seen many threads about where did Prudence go, but I am asking anyway... which card is he referring to as Prudence?