Since we are so close to May 25, in which all Tarot readers celebrate World’s Tarot Day, I dated to translate this article of mine, a written a while back.
All quotes in books are from Spanish Books, that is my native language, which is why the may not feel very accurate if you own them in english.
To Say Tarot
To say Tarot, is, to be referring a very special category of card game. That is, a deck of cards, yes, pieces of cardboard, which can be rectangular, circular, triangular, etc., with a very specific representation on one side, and some figure on the other, not always specific and generally repeated on each one of the cards, which is often called back. Clearly, we will be focusing on the front side to determine what is a tarot and what is not, that’s the one we do interpretations about, even though there are many reverses that are in fact very interesting, like Vice Versa Tarot deck, by Massimiliano Filadoro and Lunaea Weatherstone, which does have very particular back side, that mades it almost imposible not to read.
That being said, the difference between a Tarot deck and everything else that has the form of a deck of cards is, as previously stated, a very specific sequence of cards that comes with a very specific representation, which in this particular case has been called Triunphs, or "Major Arcana”, which can implicate that if there are a Major arcane set of cards, there is also a MINOR set of cards, and that’s a problem because that simple fact itself leads to a serious, heavily discussed issue between the Tarot Reading community and other people who practice other mantic associated practices as well.
For instance: The word «Tarot» currently used in most languages, is the French term for «tarocco», a game that –as far as we know– first appeared in northern Italy at the beginning of the century XV and which is made up of 78 cards, made up of 22 «triumphs» or Major Arcana and 56 minor ones, which in turn are divided into four species or suits: gold, cups, swords and clubs [Waite Edith, The Universal Tarot of Waite, Editorial Sirio, 2006, p. 8]. Even though it is the most handy book in my library at the moment, it is coincident with the common descriptions that appear in books that usually comes along with the tarot decks themselves, that refer to the term and what it describes., available in bookstores today. Coincident, also, with the definitions that most abound surfing the web, sometimes trying to add original mythical derivations, with which it is healthy to argue, because as Victoria Mateo rightly says “until proven otherwise, the tarot was invented in Italy, more or less in the fourteenth century, there is evidence of that, not the rest ”, also adding more often than necessary the word“ divination” or “prediction system ”with which it is also healthy to argue, because it circumscribes everyone who dedicates to this study into the practices that are within the field of cartomancy, being a fairly deep-rooted use within practice, which can be the case and to be fair most of us do sometimes, but to be honest, its not the only way of studying it, does not make it the only possible one.
Which is, in fact the reason why it still discussed in the latin community, every time we are celebrating and sharing the day of those who dedicate ourselves to the tarot, it can be glimpsed that there are still those who say “day del taromante”, which it was suggested to because “tarotista + amante = TARO MANTE” but, as Liliana Cavallini says, the term. Is in fact a direct reference to mantic arts. To set the example in English, it would be like saying that “cartomancer” means cards romance and not cartomancy. So, “tarotmante” reduces all tarot reading people to the cartomancer part of this art, which is why free prefer to say Tarotista, in English “tarotist” instead, cause the suffix -ISTA (ist), shared with words as an artist, to designate the profession, unlike the word that, as Liliana well says, we are advocates of changing "taromante" (so sectorialized, cause its real meaning refers to "divination through the tarot", for the term cartomancer already exists) for which he describes more the cultists of the tarot: tarot.
http://tarotmisteriosdevelados.blogspot.com.ar/2016/11/aniversario-del-dia-del-tarotista.html
Important differentiation, although disdained by all those who still deny that words designate singular and particular concepts, that root them in their own structures, and not only only within the underworld that circumscribes the Tarotists in particular.
And beyond the fact that it is possible to trace the words that were preceding and giving rise to this we are talking about now - my favorite being the one that connects it to the word IDIOT [1] - the problem is not in the word itself , but in that once given to denominate Tarot to the game of cards, the denomination the parts that conform it tends to be less controversial and therefore more necessary its discussion.
Either by common use, or by the need of those who wield disdain for everything concerning the use of this deck as a game - thus mutilating the most direct way of apprehending its content - each of the cards has been called Arcane, which etymologically means secret, mystery or that remains closed and hidden, as if there was something mysterious, closed and hidden in each of its sheets, when the funniest part of the game is that everything is on the table, so that Each one plays to find the associations that respond to each particular slide, either within the convention that has been learned from studying it, or within our very own interpretation that will add nuances as the content of the images, each time they are seen as a whole, playing in different positions, each time attending to each particular detail, as well as the meanings that are spun when observing how it has been the set that run, from that moment to again find new associations and new details not previously appreciated, which is always for me what makes the game more fun and interesting.
Although the differentiation, as mentioned above between major and minor arcana can be considered, from a more current perspective, as a game, or a fight if you like, of power, where the victor is the greatest, or as they can also be called –Although as I finish circumscribed to this deck, the “triumphs”, which etymologically referred to the decoration given to the Roman soldiers who returned victorious after killing five thousand enemy soldiers, have fallen into disuse, with which they would still be realizing more of this game or fight, in which the main award that the so-called Major Arcana receive is, from the most current perspective, plain and simple having become the sine qua non condition for a deck of cards to be called and be considered TAROT.
By this, I mean that if, and only if, a deck of cards contains the so-called Major Arcana, it can be considered Tarot. Of the infinite decks of cards, including those generated for exclusive oracular use, only those that have the structure that contains the 22 major arcana can be called Tarot. It doesn't matter the amounts of cards aside those 22. With very specific, what I'm implying is that the important thing about these 22 arcana is the specific structure that shapes them, being able to change the name, or in some specific cases even the numbering [2], being able to change some detail in their symbolic associations, according they are added according to the sociocultural roots and particular interpretation of each author, being able to change the color, the shape or even the characters, being able to change almost everything EXCEPT the archetypal structure of each one of them.
In fact, if for some particular reason you want to divide the 78-card deck mentioned in the principle quote between major and minor arcana, the major ones as a whole and by themselves could continue to be called Tarot, while the minor ones do not, because Plain and simple without major arcana there is no Tarot, on the other hand, without minor arcana.
Hence, the quote that I named at the beginning, not by "correct", means that it is not 100% true, since it assumes that the tarot consists of 78 cards, consisting of 22 "triumphs" or Major Arcana and 56 minor, which in turn they are divided into four species or suits: gold, cups, swords and clubs. In the sense that it can generate quite widespread confusion, especially among those who subscribe to take it exhaustively. Here is an example:
 |
| [Tarot de la Felicite, Osho Zen, Egipcio de Editorial Kier y Rider Waite] |
It would be too absurd to deny that Le Tarot de la Felicite is not a tarot just because it does not include minor arcana, that the Osho Zen Tarot does not constitute a tarot, just because it decided to add a card when you did not subtract any of the major ones, or that the Egyptian Tarot by Kier does not constitutes a tarot, only for not dividing the minor arcana into four suits.
But to conclude, it is fair to say that as long as the archetypal structure of the 22 major arcana is maintained, the name of the word tarot can be maintained, it is to speak of a coincident structure that, except for The Fool, which can appear as arcane 0 (zero ) or 22, tends to maintain the following succession: I The Magician, II The Popess or The Priestess, III The Empress, IV The Emperor, V The Pope or The High Priest, VI The Lovers, VII The Chariot, VIII Justice, IX El Ermitaño, X The Wheel of Fortune, XI a Fuerza, XII El Colgado, XIII La Muerte, XIV La Temperance, XV El Diablo, XVI La Torre (or the House of God), XVII La Estrella, XVIII La Luna, XIX The Sun, XX The Judgment, XXI The World and XXII The Fool.And always welcome everything that adds interpretations that incorporate nuances, whether they are enriching from the construction, or from the discussion as long as you do not try to monopolize this structure as complex as it is simple, and so obvious that it confuses those who try only to find hidden meanings , and so full of implications that it confuses those who only approach it from a merely aesthetic perspective with no interpretive intention, because as Oscar Wilde says well, not in reference to the tarot but that can be well applied:
All art at the same time surface and symbol.
Those who transcend the surface are exposed to the consequences.
Those who penetrate the symbol are exposed to the consequences.
Art, in reality, reflects the viewer and not life.
The various interpretations of a work of art show that this work is new, complex but, above all, that it is alive. When critics disagree, the artist agrees with himself.
We can forgive a man for doing something useful as long as he doesn't admire him. The only excuse for doing a useless thing is to deeply admire it
All art is completely useless.
[Wilde Oscar, The Portrait of Dorian Gray. Ed. Read. 2014. Page 12]
[1] The first known document in which the term Tarochi appears in relation to card games, is an accounts register of the Este Court of the second semester 1505, in a note dated June 30th. Then it appears again in the same register on December 26th. Ross Caldwell has pointed out that the word tarochus, even if not referring to card games, was already used in the XV century, as he discovered in the Maccheronea (dedicated to Gaspare Visconti, † 1499), by the poet Bassano Mantovano, in which the term is used with the meaning of "idiot".
Erat mecum mea socrus unde putana
Quod foret a sibi pensebat ille tarochus
Et cito ni solvam mihi menazare started.
(My mother-in-law was with me, and this idiot thought I could get some money out of her, so I started threatening me).
To this document should be added Giovan Giorgio Alione's Frotula de le dòne (Frottola of women), which we have identified, dated "toward 1494", which in the context of Charles VIII's descent into Italy, means the end of 1494 or a little later . In it the word Taroch appears with the meaning of "Foolish".
(http://www.letarot.it/page.aspx?id=220&ln)
[2] attending to the particular castling between arcana VII and XI, which occurs in the Rider Waite deck, and some of the decks derived from it, since to deny that it constitutes a tarot of this deck due to the exchange of numbers would be a luck of absolute example of foolishness.
