Tarot Correspondences

G6

Hey Folks!

I'm a bit of a free-form or lazy tarot reader, but I'm interested to know more about this idea of correspondences in tarot. I found this chart (see link below). Is this the general field of possibilities?

http://www.botaineurope.org/index.php?id=16

Would like a general idea of what people typically mean when they talk about correspondences and any specific experience/practice you have developed with using them to read the cards.

Thanks for your input!

✌🏻

G6
 

Spiffo

Ooh the minefield that is correpondences ...

I'm pretty sure there is a flavour for everyone; personally I stick with the Golden Dawn and Crowley (see Liber T and and 777 - both freely available on the web). The BOTA chart that you've linked is derived in the main from the Golden Dawn. There are loads of discussions here in the Forum.

I think the real trick is to find one set of correspondences that you like, and work with it for a while to see how it plays out for you. The obvious ones, like astrology, planets, Hebrew letters (and associated Tree of Life stuff) one might think would be consistent across all the Tarot schools of thought are far from it. I've mentioned Golden Dawn, but I have decks that use Piobb's system, Etteilla, Balbi and some other odd Spanish derivatives, and it goes on.

But I can let you know that there is a new book coming out early next year written by a friend of mine that will be all about Tarot correspondences; dare I suggest it will become the contemporary classic on the issue/s. We'll all hear more as the publication date approaches.
 

Barleywine

The B.O.T.A. correspondences are basically identical to the ones from the Golden Dawn system that I use, except I assign the "primordial" elements - Fire, Water and Air instead of the modern planets Uranus, Neptune and Pluto to the Fool, the Hanged Man and Judgement. As far as using them, I consider the fundamental interpretive meaning of a card first and then plug in correspondences as necessary to fill out the picture, especially if I'm coming up light on contextual detail. I don't use all of them every time either, just what emerges from the overall narrative. In order of precedence I'd say I use numerical associations most, derived more from Pythagoras than the Golden Dawn, then elements/suits followed by astrological signs, planets and decans, Hebrew letter correspondences and maybe a bit of color theory if it seems applicable. It can be fairly free-form rather than rigid in practice.
 

ihcoyc

I use correspondences, especially numerology, a lot more with the minors than with the majors.

The majors are so rich in cultural context that I find that 777 style attributions don't really add much to them. You should know that there is also several alternative attributions of the Hebrew letters to the majors. These differences appear in the Francophone tradition; the Golden Dawn system is followed everywhere in Anglophone tarot. If you have a Wirth deck, you will notice it has Hebrew letters that differ from the GD versions. In his order Magician is Aleph and the Fool is Shin, inserted before Tau. Since Hebrew letters don't carry a whole lot of symbolic weight for me, none of these systems really affect what I do.
 

ravenest

Hey Folks!

I'm a bit of a free-form or lazy tarot reader, but I'm interested to know more about this idea of correspondences in tarot. I found this chart (see link below). Is this the general field of possibilities?

http://www.botaineurope.org/index.php?id=16

Would like a general idea of what people typically mean when they talk about correspondences and any specific experience/practice you have developed with using them to read the cards.

Thanks for your input!

✌🏻

G6

For me, looking at a card is like spying through a keyhole and seeing that one little picture hanging on the opposite wall, decorating a room . With correspondences added its like walking into the room and seeing everything associated with that card.

This way, cards 'tag' a 'field' or range of energies that extend into all things. So the card has 'opened up' and revealed and relates to ...... 'the whole world' .
 

G6

For me, looking at a card is like spying through a keyhole and seeing that one little picture hanging on the opposite wall, decorating a room . With correspondences added its like walking into the room and seeing everything associated with that card.

This way, cards 'tag' a 'field' or range of energies that extend into all things. So the card has 'opened up' and revealed and relates to ...... 'the whole world' .

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

G6

Ooh the minefield that is correpondences ...

I'm pretty sure there is a flavour for everyone; personally I stick with the Golden Dawn and Crowley (see Liber T and and 777 - both freely available on the web). The BOTA chart that you've linked is derived in the main from the Golden Dawn. There are loads of discussions here in the Forum.

I think the real trick is to find one set of correspondences that you like, and work with it for a while to see how it plays out for you. The obvious ones, like astrology, planets, Hebrew letters (and associated Tree of Life stuff) one might think would be consistent across all the Tarot schools of thought are far from it. I've mentioned Golden Dawn, but I have decks that use Piobb's system, Etteilla, Balbi and some other odd Spanish derivatives, and it goes on.

But I can let you know that there is a new book coming out early next year written by a friend of mine that will be all about Tarot correspondences; dare I suggest it will become the contemporary classic on the issue/s. We'll all hear more as the publication date approaches.

I was wondering this too if there is a tarot corresondences 101 book, so I can know whats what and which would be worthwhile for me to investigate. That's the question you hit on here which ones would be good for me to know. I have no idea.
 

Barleywine

I forgot I Ching correspondences since I don't use them, but I'm not sure there is agreement on how to assign them. The 64 hexagrams don't match up well with any of the usual tarot divisions. Others here may have a better feel for that.
 

Spiffo

I was wondering this too if there is a tarot corresondences 101 book, so I can know whats what and which would be worthwhile for me to investigate. That's the question you hit on here which ones would be good for me to know. I have no idea.

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.
 

Spiffo

And, (I seem to have gotten carried away here) ...

My favourite deck, Tabula Mundi (M. M. Meleen, Atu House) has done a remarkable job of illustrating the internal correspondences between Majors and Minors, and Astro influences, along with so much else. Mel uses thematic illustrations that in part repeat across corresponding cards. It's utterly delightful to plop all the Moon/Cancer cards on a table and see motifs repeated across them all, sometimes obviously and sometimes subtly. Mel also created a matching set of 12 Zodiac or Decanic Cards to further illustrate the links between cards and stars.

In a reading these links, and correspondences, literally jump out at you.

I'm in utter awe of what the artist has done on this deck; there is simply nothing like it. It might be worth just having a look at her blog (tabulamundi.com) to see how the cards work together. Now I'd recommend her deck, and book, to any and everyone, but I do realise that it may not be to everyone's taste, but, her illustrative work is definitely worth looking at.