jmd
It may be that there is more than one question in that innocent little question.
There is the 'what is "tarot"?' - to which linguistic analysis may very well be called for.
I tend to think the more important question is related to what may be referred to as the essence of Tarot. Its manifestation will of course be a deck - a deck, I would suggest, as essentially having what Ross Caldwell has earlier mentioned: 22 major arcana cards, and 56 minors in four peculiar suits.
So what is Tarot?
I do not like 'definitions'. Certainly they may be useful as one refines one's understanding. 'Defining' is useful, for example, in a sculptural work - which thus also 'defines' the emerging structure - in such it is appropriate.
For something like the Tarot, characterising it may be more appropriate. This will of course mean that certain characteristics are exemplified over others, and that part of Tarot's essence will forever remain free - unable to be captured in its wholeness.
Characteristics then include the following - in addition to the numerical ones mentioned above.
The deck's minor arcana has four suits, exemplifying specific implements: Bastons/Sticks, Cups, Deniers/Coins, and Epées/Swords. They are further divided in such a way that a sequence occurs which depict from one through to ten of each suit, and each also has four court cards.
I suppose what I am describing is self-evident to those of us who are already familiar with the Tarot. Yet, I would suggest that these also very much form part of the essential body-form through which instances of decks may 'incarnate'.
Further, and more importantly, the Tarot may be viewed, again essentially in my view, as a reflection of a spiritual reality, reflecting human striving towards its goal. An 'end cause', if you will.
This is so not only with the Major arcana, but also with the minor, for we live in a world which itself has a fourfold aspect, and into which the spiritual manifests and strives and struggles its path.
The further we move away from describing the cards, however, apparent difficulties emerge. On the one hand, we may be closer to the higher esssence of Tarot. On the other, similar characteristic descriptions may be made of other 'items' (be they text, ritual or religion).
So what is Tarot?
How about that characteristic description I made (by combining what others had wonderfully said before me):
There is the 'what is "tarot"?' - to which linguistic analysis may very well be called for.
I tend to think the more important question is related to what may be referred to as the essence of Tarot. Its manifestation will of course be a deck - a deck, I would suggest, as essentially having what Ross Caldwell has earlier mentioned: 22 major arcana cards, and 56 minors in four peculiar suits.
So what is Tarot?
I do not like 'definitions'. Certainly they may be useful as one refines one's understanding. 'Defining' is useful, for example, in a sculptural work - which thus also 'defines' the emerging structure - in such it is appropriate.
For something like the Tarot, characterising it may be more appropriate. This will of course mean that certain characteristics are exemplified over others, and that part of Tarot's essence will forever remain free - unable to be captured in its wholeness.
Characteristics then include the following - in addition to the numerical ones mentioned above.
The deck's minor arcana has four suits, exemplifying specific implements: Bastons/Sticks, Cups, Deniers/Coins, and Epées/Swords. They are further divided in such a way that a sequence occurs which depict from one through to ten of each suit, and each also has four court cards.
I suppose what I am describing is self-evident to those of us who are already familiar with the Tarot. Yet, I would suggest that these also very much form part of the essential body-form through which instances of decks may 'incarnate'.
Further, and more importantly, the Tarot may be viewed, again essentially in my view, as a reflection of a spiritual reality, reflecting human striving towards its goal. An 'end cause', if you will.
This is so not only with the Major arcana, but also with the minor, for we live in a world which itself has a fourfold aspect, and into which the spiritual manifests and strives and struggles its path.
The further we move away from describing the cards, however, apparent difficulties emerge. On the one hand, we may be closer to the higher esssence of Tarot. On the other, similar characteristic descriptions may be made of other 'items' (be they text, ritual or religion).
So what is Tarot?
How about that characteristic description I made (by combining what others had wonderfully said before me):
- A peculiar hieratic wisdom book of seventy-eight detachable illustrated pages which is imaginatively unlocked and read in any divined order or manner inspired or intuited.
Tarot is my pathway to God. 
