Preferred Method For Playing Cards?

[Guest]

I started out reading Tarot. I went through several different actual Tarot decks over time and still have a couple of my favorites. Along the way, I found I had a knack for reading with playing cards and it eventually became my preferred medium. However, I have always read them in a fashion similar to the way I read regular Tarot. The deck I have been designing is actually centered around this method. I even self published a book using this method on Amazon several years ago. (Although some of my interpretations have changed since then and I really need to publish an updated version.)
 

Now looking through this forum, I see that there are whole other systems for reading playing cards. Most notably the Hedgewitchery link posted by another user here. It’s kind of mind boggling to learn about different methods after so many years of just doing it the way I do it.

 

After reading some of this forum, it makes me wonder if what I do is actually considered “Cartomancy” or is there and actual defined method? I ask mainly because I’ve never really put a name to what I do aside from reading playing cards.

 

Would like to hear others’ thoughts on this.

[Mister]

Hi there from the other side of the fence 😉

 

"Cartomancy" as a word simply describes the following:

To interpret the future by means of cards.

The "carto" is clear, the "mancy" is from old greek.

Here in germany, "divination" is "Mantik" - not that it would be used in actual speech, still, that's the word.

@Misterei will most likely know more about things greek.

 

So, strictly speaking, as long as a read done by cards does not attempt to tell something about the future, it isn't cartomancy.

 

The actual application of the word knows no such boundaries.

Anything you read by means of cards can safely be jumbled together and labeled cartomancy, especially nowadays.

What it is prominently used for: Reads done with playing cards.

Where Tarots and Oracle-cards are often excluded.

Albeit, a tarot-card reading involving an element touching upon future possibilities (and that is a good deal of them) strictly is cartomancy (cards+attempt to decipher what is yet to come).

With oracle-cards, it is "strictly wider" in application, as oracles can also be used to answer questions about upcoming decisions while retaining their definition, which are somehow set apart from the attempt to read the future. Why that is, I have no idea.

 

The funny thing being, an oracle is defined as "a revelation arrived at by the use of either a ritual or a medium".

So, if you arrive at your revelation by using a Tarot deck as your medium, that used deck would then be a pack of oracle-cards.

If said revelation had a future element as part of its focus, you have been practicing cartomancy.

🧐

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Mister said:

Hi there from the other side of the fence 😉

 

"Cartomancy" as a word simply describes the following:

To interpret the future by means of cards.

The "carto" is clear, the "mancy" is from old greek.

Here in germany, "divination" is "Mantik" - not that it would be used in actual speech, still, that's the word.

@Misterei will most likely know more about things greek.

 

So, strictly speaking, as long as a read done by cards does not attempt to tell something about the future, it isn't cartomancy.

 

The actual application of the word knows no such boundaries.

Anything you read by means of cards can safely be jumbled together and labeled cartomancy, especially nowadays.

What it is prominently used for: Reads done with playing cards.

Where Tarots and Oracle-cards are often excluded.

Albeit, a tarot-card reading involving an element touching upon future possibilities (and that is a good deal of them) strictly is cartomancy (cards+attempt to decipher what is yet to come).

With oracle-cards, it is "strictly wider" in application, as oracles can also be used to answer questions about upcoming decisions while retaining their definition, which are somehow set apart from the attempt to read the future. Why that is, I have no idea.

 

The funny thing being, an oracle is defined as "a revelation arrived at by the use of either a ritual or a medium".

So, if you arrive at your revelation by using a Tarot deck as your medium, that used deck would then be a pack of oracle-cards.

If said revelation had a future element as part of its focus, you have been practicing cartomancy.

🧐

Well, that makes it clear as mud! 🤣

More seriously-

 

From what I’m reading here, Cartomancy is its own thing but is also sort of a catch all phrase for all divinations done with card decks of any sort that incorporate future possibilities.

 

Sound about right?

[Raggydoll]

I know that many who start with tarot then discovers other systems and automatically transfer their tarot knowledge onto them. I think that, when doing so, you aren’t really benefiting or learning from those other systems. If you read playing cards as RWS minors, then that means you do not ever experience what is special with the playing card tradition. And that’s a shame, if you ask me. 
 

Tarot is a complete system where majors might be read on their own, but where the minors are never a complete deck. But the older playing cards systems gives you a complete method. So if you use meanings solely from tarot minors, you do end up with a less complete system, in my opinion. And looking at the playing card methods that don’t even use a full deck of cards.. Like the piquet method or the polish method. Imagine using that small amount of cards and still applying tarot meanings… 

 

I do wish to point out that I’m differentiating between RWS minors and tdM minors. I wouldn’t read them the same and I think there is much more merit to apply tdM techniques with playing cards. However, I have seen the deck you’re making and didn’t feel like the tdM aspect was particularly relevant here. I just wanted to clarify that 🙂

 

 

[Raggydoll]

To answer your actual question - my favorite method is to read playing cards in an older ‘fortune teller’ style fashion. I rely partly on older card meanings and partly on the ‘open reading’ style method where I look at patterns and visual input from suit emblems. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Raggydoll said:

I know that many who start with tarot then discovers other systems and automatically transfer their tarot knowledge onto them. I think that, when doing so, you aren’t really benefiting or learning from those other systems. If you read playing cards as RWS minors, then that means you do not ever experience what is special with the playing card tradition. And that’s a shame, if you ask me. 

 

I completely understand that and I really would like to explore other methods. This is just how I learned to do it and it works well for me. I can't say for anyone else who has tried it.

 

3 hours ago, Raggydoll said:

Tarot is a complete system where majors might be read on their own, but where the minors are never a complete deck. But the older playing cards systems gives you a complete method. So if you use meanings solely from tarot minors, you do end up with a less complete system, in my opinion.

 

I am of the mindset that the Major and Minor Arcana started out as two separate decks and were joined together at some point in history. At times, they still feel like two separate decks to me rather than one system. From that standpoint, each would have been its own complete system beforehand. Perhaps they were read differently (using other cartomancy methods) before being joined but I don't see the Minors as being incomplete.

 

3 hours ago, Raggydoll said:

do wish to point out that I’m differentiating between RWS minors and tdM minors. I wouldn’t read them the same and I think there is much more merit to apply tdM techniques with playing cards. However, I have seen the deck you’re making and didn’t feel like the tdM aspect was particularly relevant here. I just wanted to clarify that 🙂

 

My readings are definitely more RWS influenced so you are correct in your assumptions. 😉

 

3 hours ago, Raggydoll said:

To answer your actual question - my favorite method is to read playing cards in an older ‘fortune teller’ style fashion. I rely partly on older card meanings and partly on the ‘open reading’ style method where I look at patterns and visual input from suit emblems. 

 

I would definitely be interested in exploring that. Any links would be amazing. If nothing else, it would help broaden my horizons.

 

[Raggydoll]

11 minutes ago, WilliamEridani said:

 

I am of the mindset that the Major and Minor Arcana started out as two separate decks and were joined together at some point in history. At times, they still feel like two separate decks to me rather than one system. From that standpoint, each would have been its own complete system beforehand. Perhaps they were read differently (using other cartomancy methods) before being joined but I don't see the Minors as being incomplete.

 

Whether or not the minors originally stood alone as a complete method, separate from playing cards, I can’t say. However, I think it’s important to point out that RWS is not an historical method. It’s the ‘resurrected’ tarot, through the lens of western occultism. 
 

11 minutes ago, WilliamEridani said:

 

I would definitely be interested in exploring that. Any links would be amazing. If nothing else, it would help broaden my horizons.

 

I think it helps to read about the different old playing cards systems - links have been given in other threads for less known Russian methods and Polish methods but for something more general, the book “It’s written in the cards” is a very safe bet. If you can’t get hold of it, I think most would agree that the art of cartomancy blog is excellent. Perhaps first compare a little and then try to stick to one system and learn it. As far as the open method goes, i would start with this book below. I don’t know if others use it for playing cards, but I find that some older meanings refer to the physical appearance and placement of the suit emblems. It’s not difficult to see how two of spades can represent conflict between two people, for instance. So for me, it’s been a valuable angle to add to the more traditional meanings.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Tarot-Open-Reading-Yoav-Ben-Dov/dp/1492248991

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

Whether or not the minors originally stood alone as a complete method, separate from playing cards, I can’t say. However, I think it’s important to point out that RWS is not an historical method. It’s the ‘resurrected’ tarot, through the lens of western occultism. 

 

I've always understood that RWS was different from older methods but it's been the way I've been reading for 30 years. Pam and I have been pretty committed for awhile. 🤣

 

4 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

I think most would agree that the art of cartomancy blog is excellent.

 

Is this the one you are referring to?

 

https://artofcartomancy.blogspot.com/

[Raggydoll]

7 minutes ago, WilliamEridani said:

 

I've always understood that RWS was different from older methods but it's been the way I've been reading for 30 years. Pam and I have been pretty committed for awhile. 🤣

 

 

My first tarot deck was a majors-only deck inspired by rws that I was gifted in the 90s. So I too began my tarot journey with RWS. Though I did read playing cards and runes prior to that, so I think that helped me to view these things as individual systems. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t read tarot or playing cards a certain way, you do you. I’m just trying to make it clear for beginners who read this so they understand that different systems exist and that RWS is later invention. 
 

7 minutes ago, WilliamEridani said:

 

Is this the one you are referring to?

 

https://artofcartomancy.blogspot.com/

Indeed it is! 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

My first tarot deck was a majors-only deck inspired by rws that I was gifted in the 90s.

 

It wasn't the one you colored yourself was it?

I actually have a copy of that deck still around somewhere. I think I only half finished coloring it. 🥴

 

3 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t read tarot or playing cards a certain way, you do you. I’m just trying to make it clear for beginners who read this so they understand that different systems exist and that RWS is later invention. 

 

I totally understand.

 

3 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

Indeed it is! 

 

Excellent.

It looks to make for some very interesting reading!

 

[Raggydoll]

40 minutes ago, WilliamEridani said:

 

It wasn't the one you colored yourself was it?

I actually have a copy of that deck still around somewhere. I think I only half finished coloring it. 🥴

No it wasn’t, it was a Scandinavian deck. But I do remember the one you mention. I think I managed half a card before giving up 😁. The line drawings did not appeal to me at all! 

 

[Mister]

10 hours ago, WilliamEridani said:

From what I’m reading here, Cartomancy is its own thing but is also sort of a catch all phrase for all divinations done with card decks of any sort that incorporate future possibilities.

 

Sound about right?

 

Nailed it.

 

And, as @Raggydoll pointed out, there is a plethora of methods available.

 

The people of african-american heritage have their own ways with poker decks, and you will find a whole load of diversity in the application of actual meanings, not only with poker decks but any and all packs of playing cards.

Not so much in the suits, though.

Hearts is affairs of the heart,

Diamonds almost always money and "sparks" (things of short duration with more or less impact behind them),

The Spades and the Clovers tend to be Troubles and "Society", where work is seen as a part of.

The last two like to switch places depending on whether they are based on Spades and Clovers or on Leaves and Acorns.

And, lastly, two lines of application:

Either you have a whole suit for all the troubles (like the russian method showcased by Mr. Korolev), or the by now omnipresent Lenormands, where the hailing from the trouble-suit lineage can clearly be seen, or you have the troubles spread more or less evenly across the suits, so they signify specific problems belonging to each suits dominion.

 

Lastly, on reading minors only with RWS: In his booklet, Waite points out that he did an effort to set the two (majors and minors) apart, deeming the latter ones more suited for ordinary fortunetelling, which he endeavours to show in not so good a light as opposed to "the matters of another order", agency of the majors.

Then again, this falls apart as soon as he goes on to describe his celtic cross spread - "should it happen that in the 10th position you find a card of the major arcana..." - which doesn't happen when you work with minors only and have not been sloppy in dividing the two.

Major twist that guy, if you ask me 😛

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Mister said:

Major twist that guy, if you ask me 😛

 

I'm just mad he didn't give Pam any credit.

[Guest]

Thinking about all of this, I don't think any two people read EXACTLY the same way regardless of method used. I believe over time we all develop our own little quirks as our intuition and skill develop. However, what happens if you have two readers using different methods and one looks at the cards and says, "OMG! You're pregnant!" while the other looks at it and says, "OMG! Your house is going to burn down!" Both are looking at the same cards but different methods may give each reader different predictions. Probably a bit extreme but it gets my point across.

Edited March 4, 2023 by WilliamEridani

[Mister]

57 minutes ago, WilliamEridani said:

I'm just mad he didn't give Pam any credit.

 

He did.

Not much, though.

 

In his booklet, he does mention her as the creator of these pictures, which "of that I have no doubt, will appeal to a great number of people."

He also made it clear that he had no influence on the design of the minors, while the majors have been drawn according to his idea(l)s.

To me, the minors seem way more flowing when it comes to the linework, while I perceive a certain stiffness from the majors.

Furthermore, he introduced "the Pixie", a street-storyteller at that time, into the Order of the Golden Dawn - one of the few women in their ranks.

The GD was revolutionary, for, as it comes to orders, lodges and such, they did accept women!

Until today, that is sadly no matter of course, especially when it comes to the upper ranks.

Then again, society itself does still have much the same problem.

 

When it comes to the minors, it is very much Pam's take on what was taught by McGregor Mathers (in modern terms, a hardcore cosplay fanatic), or rather "An illustration according to her insights borne from the teachings she received/submitted to while a member of the Golden Dawn."

[Scandinavianhermit]

On 3/3/2023 at 9:16 PM, Guest said:

Now looking through this forum, I see that there are whole other systems for reading playing cards. Most notably the Hedgewitchery link posted by another user here. It’s kind of mind boggling to learn about different methods after so many years of just doing it the way I do it.

 

After reading some of this forum, it makes me wonder if what I do is actually considered “Cartomancy” or is there and actual defined method? I ask mainly because I’ve never really put a name to what I do aside from reading playing cards.

 

Would like to hear others’ thoughts on this.

There are countless systems of cartomancy, using either a full 52 playingcard deck or abridged decks with 32 or 36 cards, either with – the internationally widespread – French suite marks (clubs, hearts, spades, diamonds) or with preserved regional patterns – Italian or Spanish (batons, cups, swords, coins), German/Austrian (acorns, hearts, leaves, bells). Some oracle decks, particularly those with playing card inserts, began as derivations from regional cartomancy methods. 

 

Even within a particular linguistic-cultural region, there existed, and exists, several parallel systems of cartomancy. As a teenager in Sweden, I was exposed to a handful of different systems of interpretation, due to an aunt (who was a farmer) and an elderly female neighbour (who was middle class).

 

I'm not sure if @Raggydoll has mentioned this in another thread, but a very widespread Swedish system, first attested in 1791, is limited to the use of a 24 card deck:

 

HEART

Ace: An eagerly awaited letter or a love letter

King: A pleasant man or a suitor

Queen: A good woman 

Jack: A relative or the thoughts of the king

Ten: Friendship or confidential information

Six: "Road, path", happy journey

 

SPADES

Ace: Sad news or calumny

King: Elderly man or clergyman (i.e. a Lutheran clergyman in a Swedish 18th century context, because freedom of religion didn't emerge and increase until 1858, 1860, 1873 and 1951)

Queen: Dishonest or gossiping woman

Jack: Dishonest man or a traveller passing by 

Ten: Illness, death 

Six: "A path of unhappiness"

 

CLUBS

Ace: The home of the client or a loss for which one is not responsible

King: A civil servant or official, alternatively a male relative 

Queen: A quarrelsome woman or children out of wedlock 

Jack: Successful business or win in a lottery

Ten: Great danger or a burning house

Six: "A path of disappointment"

 

DIAMONDS

Ace: Money 

King: Affluent man

Queen: Elderly or honest woman 

Jack: A young man or a military officer

Ten: A great sum of money or an expensive gift

Six: An unexpected journey, which turn out well

 

Every system of cartomancy is shaped by a particular social and cultural context. The example above is an obvious example of that. 

[Scandinavianhermit]

Robert Chambers described an English cartomancy method in Book of Days (1869). As you would expect, gender rôles of the times and the presence of a global empire shape divinatory meanings. The method seems aimed for middle class women.

 

DIAMONDS.

• King. A man of very fair complexion; quick to auger, but soon appeased.
• Queen. A very fair woman, fond of gaiety, and a coquette.
• Knave. A selfish and deceitful relative: fair and false.
• Ten. Money. Success in honourable business.
• Nine. A roving disposition, combined with honour able and successful adventure in foreign lands.
• Eight. A happy prudent marriage, though rather late in life.
• Seven. Satire. Scandal. Unpleasant business matters.
• Six. Marriage early in life, succeeded by widow-hood.
• Five. Unexpected news, generally of a good kind.
• Four. An unfaithful friend. A secret betrayed.
• Trey. Domestic troubles, quarrels and unhappiness.
• Deuce. A clandestine engagement. A card of caution.
• Ace. A wedding ring. An offer of marriage.

 

HEARTS.

• King. A fair, but not very fair, complexioned man: good natured, but rather obstinate, and, when angered, not easily appeased.
• Queen. A woman of the same complexion as the king; faithful, prudent, and affectionate.
• Knave. An unselfish relative. A sincere friend.
• Ten. Health and happiness, with many children.
• Nine. Wealth. High position in society. The wish-card.
• Eight. Fine clothes. Pleasure. Mixing in good society. Going to balls, theatres, &e.
• Seven. Many good friends.
• Six. Honourable courtship.
• Five. A present.
• Four. Domestic troubles caused by jealousy.
• Trey. Poverty, shame and sorrow, caused by imprudence. A card of caution.
• Deuce. Success in life, position in society, and a happy marriage, attained by virtuous discretion.
• Ace. The house of the person consulting the decrees of fate.

 

SPADES.

• King. A man of very dark complexion, ambitious and unscrupulous.
• Queen. A very dark complexioned woman, of malicious disposition. A widow.
• Knave. A lawyer. A person to be shunned.
• Ten.. Disgrace: crime: imprisonment. Death on the scaffold. A card of caution.
• Nine. Grief: ruin: sickness: death.
• Eight. Great danger from imprudence. A card of caution.
• Seven. Unexpected poverty caused by the death of a relative. A lean sorrow.
• Six. A child. To the unmarried a card of caution.
• Five. Great danger from giving way to bad temper. A card of caution.
• Four. Sickness.
• Trey. A journey by land. Tears.
• Deuce. A removal.
• Ace. Death; malice; a duel; a general misfortune.

 

CLUBS.

• King. A dark complexioned man, though not so dark as the king of spades: upright, true, and affectionate.
• Queen. A woman of the same complexion, agreeable, genteel, and witty.
• Knave. A sincere, but rather hasty-tempered friend.
• Ten. Unexpected wealth, through the death of a relative. A fat sorrow.
• Nine. Danger caused by drunkenness. A card of caution.
• Eight. Danger from covetousness. A card of caution. Seven. A prison. Danger arising from the opposite sex. A card of caution.
• Six. Competence by hard-working industry.
• Five. A happy, though not wealthy marriage.
• Four. Danger of misfortunes caused by inconstancy, or capricious temper. A card of caution.
• Trey. Quarrels. Or in reference to time may signify three years, three mouths, three weeks, or three days. it also denotes that a person will be married more than once.
• Deuce. Vexation, disappointment.
• Ace. A letter.

 

 

[Raggydoll]

43 minutes ago, Scandinavianhermit said:

There are countless systems of cartomancy, using either a full 52 playingcard deck or abridged decks with 32 or 36 cards, either with – the internationally widespread – French suite marks (clubs, hearts, spades, diamonds) or with preserved regional patterns – Italian or Spanish (batons, cups, swords, coins), German/Austrian (acorns, hearts, leaves, bells). Some oracle decks, particularly those with playing card inserts, began as derivations from regional cartomancy methods. 

 

Even within a particular linguistic-cultural region, there existed, and exists, several parallel systems of cartomancy. As a teenager in Sweden, I was exposed to a handful of different systems of interpretation, due to an aunt (who was a farmer) and an elderly female neighbour (who was middle class).

 

I'm not sure if @Raggydoll has mentioned this in another thread, but a very widespread Swedish system, first attested in 1791, is limited to the use of a 24 card deck:

 

HEART

Ace: An eagerly awaited letter or a love letter

King: A pleasant man or a suitor

Queen: A good woman 

Jack: A relative or the thoughts of the king

Ten: Friendship or confidential information

Six: "Road, path", happy journey

 

SPADES

Ace: Sad news or calumny

King: Elderly man or clergyman (i.e. a Lutheran clergyman in a Swedish 18th century context, because freedom of religion didn't emerge and increase until 1858, 1860, 1873 and 1951)

Queen: Dishonest or gossiping woman

Jack: Dishonest man or a traveller passing by 

Ten: Illness, death 

Six: "A path of unhappiness"

 

CLUBS

Ace: The home of the client or a loss for which one is not responsible

King: A civil servant or official, alternatively a male relative 

Queen: A quarrelsome woman or children out of wedlock 

Jack: Successful business or win in a lottery

Ten: Great danger or a burning house

Six: "A path of disappointment"

 

DIAMONDS

Ace: Money 

King: Affluent man

Queen: Elderly or honest woman 

Jack: A young man or a military officer

Ten: A great sum of money or an expensive gift

Six: An unexpected journey, which turn out well

 

Every system of cartomancy is shaped by a particular social and cultural context. The example above is an obvious example of that. 

I have not seen that exact method. Which book is it from? The ones I have come across are of a slightly later date, like Trefnadens källa etc. I think maybe the hand painted deck that belonged to Fagra Lisa is built on this system though it uses 36 cards, it is one I’ve been very interested in. It’s also similar to some of the Eastern European systems. I’d love to see any of the older Swedish systems you are aware of. Feel free to PM me if you have them in Swedish !

[Scandinavianhermit]

1 minute ago, Raggydoll said:

I have not seen that exact method. Which book is it from? 

It was first published in Nytt sätt att spå i kort (1791). The Royal Library in Stockholm has a copy from 1801 and several later editions/printings, but it is not available through inter-library loan.

 

Throughout the 20th century, this method was re-told in the sort of cheap magazines my grandmothers used to read, but also in handbooks about cardgames (some of them paperback). My aunt, a sturdy farmers' wife, used this method. 

 

 

[Scandinavianhermit]

Charles Platt's book Card Fortune Telling contains several methods known in UK in the early part of the 20th century. It is available online here: https://archive.org/details/cardfortunetelli00plat/mode/1up?view=theater

[Raggydoll]

12 minutes ago, Scandinavianhermit said:

It was first published in Nytt sätt att spå i kort (1791). The Royal Library in Stockholm has a copy from 1801 and several later editions/printings, but it is not available through inter-library loan.

 

so there are no ways to read it online? That’s a bummer 😔 The book I once had (which belonged to my grandfather) got missing and the only library that has it is one down south, that I can’t access. These things frustrate me. I really wish it was easier for us up north to have access to these things. They could have digitized it since it’s well out of print anyway. 
 

I have been wanting to explore the older Swedish methods more closely but I constantly run across this issue. Oh well, it is what it is.
 

Rant over 😁
 

12 minutes ago, Scandinavianhermit said:

 

Throughout the 20th century, this method was re-told in the sort of cheap magazines my grandmothers used to read, but also in handbooks about cardgames (some of them paperback). My aunt, a sturdy farmers' wife, used this method. 

 

 

Oh how lovely! The version I was introduced to was very simplistic but it’s one that I got a lot of use out of. I would have liked to find the older sources for it, I don’t know where it originally came from. And it would have been great to learn more details (I don’t remember everything). 

[Scandinavianhermit]

25 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

I have not seen that exact method. Which book is it from? 

It was also described among several alternative methods in Bonniers Månadsblad (1915).

 

https://runeberg.org/bonnierma/1915/0971.html

 

[Raggydoll]

4 minutes ago, Scandinavianhermit said:

It was also described among several alternative methods in Bonniers Månadsblad (1915).

 

https://runeberg.org/bonnierma/1915/0971.html

 

Thank you!! 

[Scandinavianhermit]

2 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

I have been wanting to explore the older Swedish methods more closely but I constantly run across this issue. Oh well, it is what it is.

 

"Sven Linde", which was actually a pseudonym for Axel Carlborg (1868-1912), gathered most of the methods in use by the late 19th century in an anthology called Sibyllans hemligheter (a weird bricolage of cartomancy, stage magic, oneiromancy, divination with ground coffee, and unsourced quotes from Paul Christian). The first edition was printed in 1905, I believe. It was reprinted several times throughout the 20th century.

[Raggydoll]

3 minutes ago, Scandinavianhermit said:

 

"Sven Linde", which was actually a pseudonym for Axel Carlborg (1868-1912), gathered most of the methods in use by the late 19th century in an anthology called Sibyllans hemligheter (a weird bricolage of cartomancy, stage magic, oneiromancy, divination with ground coffee, and unsourced quotes from Paul Christian). The first edition was printed in 1905, I believe. It was reprinted several times throughout the 20th century.

I did have that book as a kid! I got it for Christmas I believe. The one my grandfather had was one of those that were ascribed to wise Finns. I believe the book that is claimed to be after a “Finngummas efterlämnade papper” is what the deck ”finngubbens spåkort” are based on. I’ve seen them both but don’t have them. I believe they are partly similar to some Russian methods that I have found, but I would have to reread the book to know for sure, and I can’t get hold of a copy.