Question about Swords...

Not that familiar some of the terminology, but henceforth I'll refer to the suit as Batons. What I see in the Camoin Jodorowsky Tarot de Marseille are Batons as the curvilinear forms in the Swords cards. They are topologically congruent, except for the rectangular struts appearing at the handles in Swords suit. It is as if Batons crossed at the center in the Batons suit are instead crossed at the handles, and bent or curved outward. The handles in the curved "Swords" are the same shape as handles in Batons suit, just distorted as one would expect from bending out the Batons. They both have handles at both ends. In the 2's for example, they both have oval shaped "nodules" in the same locations, 4 each. The cross hatch weaving in the later numbered Batons are duplicated in two locations, upper and lower, in the later numbered Swords. If these curved Baton-looking figures in the Swords weren't meant to be Batons, then it seems to me someone at least went out of their way to call attention to a congruence with Batons.

Finally, perhaps this is just this (Camoin-Jordo) deck, (can't say about other decks), in which case my "tentative" conclusion would be directed to others who are using the same.

Sulis,
To address your other comments. I do get the impression from the Camo Jordo Deck that there's an implied wooden grip in the Ace of Swords by the green coloring. I'm not saying that this is a Wand of sorts anymore, but correcting my language to call it a Baton of sorts.

From my cursory research, sword handles were at least sometimes partially made from wood, the metal blade being extended to insert into a wood construction to form the grip. Thus, in a sense, the sword blade might be considered as being inserted into a short partially hollowed baton at the grip.

I can only conjecture that the sword evolved from the stick. Maybe something like stick to spear to sword (perhaps originally wooden)?

MikeG: Quote
"I can only conjecture that the sword evolved from the stick. Maybe something like stick to spear to sword (perhaps originally wooden)? "

Hi Mike,

Maybe wood was easier to come by for a sword handle, if you wern't a terribly rich person ?

However, When the 52 card Mamluk deck arrived in Spain the suits were Swords (scimtars) and 'sticks' (thought now to be Polo Sticks), but it seems some deck creators at that time took them for Staffs. ergo = Batons.

Bee

Bernice, I don't know for sure about the reasons for a wooden sword handle, but I get the impression that it was a better grip than metal.

I guess in the distant future debates will rage over whether Luke Skywalker's weapon was a magic wand, plain ole ordinary light sword, or a combination.

So the consensus is that this ambiguity in some decks (or maybe only this Jodo-Camo deck) is simply an artifact of human error in judgement, unrelated to any sort of "objective" connection between the two suits?

MikeG said:

Bernice, .......................

So the consensus is that this ambiguity in some decks (or maybe only this Jodo-Camo deck) is simply an artifact of human error in judgement, unrelated to any sort of "objective" connection between the two suits?

Click to expand...

Well, yes. Because there alway were four clearly defined suits. However iconologists (right word?) examine every detail of the early (not reproduction) decks and if there was any possibilty of a confusion between Swords and Staffs it would have been duly noted with the deck(s) in question and the time & place of their creation. You could perhaps do search re. iconology and original tarot decks?

Bee x

Hi Mike

I'm inclined to agree with Bernice here, and probably the best post for looking at the Sword and Baton depictions is linked in jmd post where he examined old decks and speculates on how the images were transformed to what we currently have in our reproduction decks. With the cards being manufactured from woodblock printing it was likely easy to lose some detail or miss-carve details. So I would say 'yes' the ambiguity is likely down to either errors or that the Mamluk decks were the inspiration for the shapes of the Swords. I think of them as Scimitars. Probably no magical/esoteric/occult intent.

Nice to see this thread mentioned again.

I see.... Well, I thought I had a well researched reproduction of what the earliest decks might've looked like with the Camo Jodo deck. Ah well..

I don't know if I'll have time to pursue the study of Iconography. My Tarot study itself is periphereal to, but triggered by, a extensive study I'm doing on Rudolf Steiner's writings. Sorry. I'm not sure that I can agree to leave the final statement on the occult/esoteric significance of the ancient Tarot to Iconographers but it certainly carries the weight of established scientific methodology. Perhaps another blog somewhere would be more appropriate for my questions.

Thanks to all you, it has been informative!

Hi Mike

You do have a good deck, I also have the Camoin and love to read with it. And please don't be put off by seeing things in the Marseilles because we all do that, it's how the Marseilles should be read i.e. in a free way. I use mine in a spiritual way and to reflect on things happening in my life and have often seen things in the card which have no historical relevance to how the deck was designed and its initial intent, which is game playing.

As for Rudolf Steiner, you have good company in that jmd also is a keen advocate. So the Marseilles decks can span so many areas of interest. It's good to ask questions, been doing it myself for years and I still am.

Forgot to add that you will find the Camoin to be a reproduction of several old decks and not just one type, so that in itself makes it an interesting reading deck to me.

Just a reminder....... dispite years and years of research (which spans non-english languages), the most ardent Historians cannot find any esoteric/occult content of the historical tarots. Bearing in mind that the card deck now called Tarot didn't exist until the 15th century. Playing cards (52) came first.

Bee :0

PS. Check this out:

"The oldest record of printed cards" (They were playing cards)

http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=734322&postcount=27