They make a lot less sense than their kabbalistic equivalents, as the above descriptions show. So I wonder why this 'astrology' is so prominent on the card ?
Its been a source of confusion for many people, and for a long time ... with quiet a few posts around here on the subject. Sometimes, looking at a card and the astrology on it it gels with the card meaning, sometimes it doesnt ... the same as when looking at the decanic image ( which I still cant see the point of nowadays , except as a 'reminder scene' for a 'memory theatre' aid) ... I know most disagree with that .... my system works better IMO, yet not for every card, so all systems seem to have part application.
Some think those little planetary signs at the top of the card mean (like in astrology) a planet in a sign ... but it doesnt .... the decans of those signs in tarot are different from the modern concept of the 3 parts of a sign ( each 10 degrees) .... one decan of a sign can have a very different energy than another ... and one planet can result in a very different energy depending on what decan of a sign it is in. And if that was the idea ... why are all the other planets not represented for each decan ? We have to remember here ... in a way .... we are dealing with 36 'signs'.
For a while, I thought that each planet might be a general representation of the energy of the stars, or a significant single star of that decan , as in earlier astrology , eg. take the star Algol - the demons head , the piled up corpses, Medusa, etc it was described as (like most things stem from in astrology) a combination of planets, usually 2 : " According to Ptolemy, Perseus is like Jupiter and Saturn. It is said to give an intelligent, strong, bold and adventurous nature, but a tendency to lying. " and algol specifically; "Of the nature of Saturn and Jupiter. It causes misfortune, violence, decapitation, hanging, electrocution and mob violence, and gives a dogged and violent nature that causes death to the native or others. It is the most evil star in the heavens."
[Robson, p.124.]
But that 'standard' order around the decanic circle (the Chaldean order) nullifies that IMO , unless we are going to speculate that the energy of stars going around the decans is somehow in the same order as the 'Chaldean order' of the planets ? Nah .
IMO they are used as a system of annotation ... I am not sure when they were first applied to the decans? Wouldnt it be amusing if it was one of those quaint GD things that only had relevance to some obscure part of their doctrine (like the Tree of Life projected on to a Sphere
) ?
There is a question to be looked at !
IMO each decan's energy is a relic from an early astrological age when the influence of stars was more important than any concept of 'framed space' .... also, remember this GD/Thoth system is all sidereal but people are applying tropical astrology to it and trying to make sense or get an understanding .
So I (still) postulate, originally it was star energy within a decan ... that became the decanic energy ( with mix ups during transitions) that became described in decanic images ( more mix ups) then the images were used later to try to understand the tarot via its decanic association (add more mix ups) , then we had the baptism of cards ( new titles under the GD system) .
So, I think with a combo of all three one should be able to find links with card meanings going back through different phases of understanding the decans.
Still :
Q: When did the planets, in the 'Chaldean Order' first get applied to the decans ?
[ The modern concept is that a card energy is the same as a planet in a sign ( which means any part of a sign nowadays - not a decan ) ... the above seems to make little difference to most I discuss this with. Some have even said it would disrupt the way people read Thoth, and that is already too well established with this planet in sign stuff ... and somone suggested that is the way Crowley saw it too - planet in sign. ]
.