Tarot vs. Oracle: A question of numbers?

[Aeric]

My new Tarot de Los Angeles is a peculiar deck. It's not structured like a traditional Tarot, but it has the trappings of one.

http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/los-angeles/

Here's how it's organized:

27 Choir Angels, divided into nine ranked Choirs of three angels each: three Seraphim, three Cherubim, etc.
10 Archangels
29 Representatives, angels as well as fairies, gnomes, nature spirits, a ghost, even the Holy Spirit
12 Negatives

Broadly we could say that it's a 27/51 Major/Minor division, with the Celestial Choirs being a distinct group. But the remaining fifty-one cards are not divided into four suits, and the characters have no apparent relation across the three groups where patterns can be defined. These are nearly all face cards; only one does not depict a person, but the Garden of Eden.

Nonetheless, the entire deck is numerically ranked 1 through 78, with the first angel of the highest Choir of the Seraphim 1 at the top, down to the most pathetic fallen angel of the Negatives with 78. From the heights of Heaven to the depths of Hell, so to speak. There are no horizontal connections, only the single vertical one.

There is no unique way of reading this deck provided by the authors, as an oracle might have. The LWB comes with three Tarot spreads: a 5-card cross, the 10-card Celtic Cross, and a 15-card Patriarchal Cross.

But given all this, is it more right to term this deck an Oracle than Tarot?

By this question, does a post-Marseille Tarot deck need follow the 22/56-card 4-suit format exactly, or close to it, to be termed a Tarot?

 

[Le Fanu]

Can of worms and all that.

I'll be honest, the way personal meanings are arrived at in many cases, I suspect it really is a question of numbers. Seventy-eight is the all important number (and yes, I know about the Deva and the Minchiate), and I am intrigued by those decks such as the Cards of Nostradamus (LoS) and Voices of the Saints and a couple of others which have 78 cards but no obvious Major/Minor divisions. I like these decks, like the cat among the pigeons.

I think it's the handy Major/Minor divisions that people like to see, though most oracle decks now are savvy enought to hint at a Major/Minor, lesser/greater division of sorts (or like the hierarchy in your angel deck). Elemental associations less so.

I like this debate, it always gets impassioned views.

But really, I think in many cases, people want all the cachet of tarot with its centuries-old "tradition" juxtaposed with meanings they've came up with over the last couple of years. A new oracle that doesn't have a "Death" card just doesn't quite cut it somehow.

I like tarot decks and oracles but I find myself thinking more and more that maybe the differences are over-exaggerated.

 

[Aeric]

I believe that's ultimately what sets them apart. Designers want the traditional Tarot patterns, but also the ability to go their own way even more flexibly than being locked into the archetypes set by the traditional Majors or four suits. Yet the learning curve with Oracles is steeper because you're going entirely by the author's perspective. I've rarely found an oracle without a guide book, yet many people don't even glance at the LWB when opening a Tarot deck. But the divisions are so familiar that moving between the two types, you often unconsciously look for them in oracles.

In my case, judging the deck's workability instead of its numbers may be more feasible. Los Angeles seems to fall close to if not into "Not Quite Tarot." Marketed as a Tarot deck, with spreads and interpretations, but drawing no obvious inspiration from Mars, Waite, Thoth, or any other standard deck, and relying much more heavily on single-card interpretations than connecting patterns. I suppose it can be argued that oracles can equally be employed as Tarot decks using Tarot spreads, even if they weren't intended as such. But then they wouldn't stand apart from Tarot as unique presentations.

BTW on further study, it struck me that perhaps the Nine Choirs + 10 Archangels could stand for the Heavenly Host, the ones closest to God, while the remaining cards, consisting of nature spirits and abstract angels, including the fallen ones, could be the Earthly angels, the ones closer to humans who affect us more personally than the others. That makes 37/41, almost a neat balance.

 

[Ipseity]

Oracle

This is most certainly an oracle deck, IMHO. As I see it, the definition of a Tarot deck is pretty rigid given it's associations with hermetic Qabalah and the classical elements. But really, I don't see why it matters whether it's Tarot or oracle (except maybe for where it goes on Aeclectic's index!). Both styles of deck can be useful and beautiful. Yours sounds very interesting and I might pick it up if I ever have the cash. The pictures are absolutely mouth-watering.

 

[Maskelyne]

I think a deck should at least refer back to the structure and symbolism of traditional tarot. At a minimum I'd expect pips and courts in suits, plus trumps, in some form or other. Extra cards, different suits, different courts, different names, or renumbered trumps can all be understood as variations on a theme.

The only obvious similarities between Tarot de los Angeles and a tarot deck are the name and the number of cards. From the few cards I've seen, this deck isn't remotely related to tarot. Unless there's some way matching the cards to tarot cards (if Mastema is the 2 of Swords, e.g.), I'd say this is an oracle deck.

 

[Aeric]

I thought there might be a way to match them, certain cards seem to emulate Tarot figures, but it's random and inconsistent, given the hierarchy.

There is a card called the Ancient of Days showing a robed, wizened sage angel in a dim wood holding a lantern, essentially The Hermit in image. The Ancient of Days is a term for God himself when depicted in art as an old man, connecting him back to depictions of Saturn as Father Time, the root of the Hermit archetype. But the card goes no further than that.

There are also angels of Star, Moon, and Sun, and as expected also an Angel of Justice holding scales, Angels of Death, Angel of Strength, and Lucifer himself. But none of these cards have any particular connection to each other; they'd have to be imposed by me.

It seems the author wanted to graft Tarot symbolism onto a deck about angels. Most other angel decks, as all themed decks, do the reverse and start with the Tarot lineup as a foundation.