Learning Tdm (Resources And Discussions)

[Flaxen]

1 hour ago, Raggydoll said:

As a side note, the suit of clubs in playing cards are called ‘klöver’ here. It very simply means Clover. The shape of the symbol is definitely like a clover and I have never understood the clubs thing. (I do believe the French word for this suit means clover too?) Maybe European countries share a more similar view of some things and tend to describe them in a similar way? 

It’s the same in Dutch too. 

 

The word ‘staff’ could work in English as it could be a practical implement (used for support or attack/defence) as well as more ornate/ceremonial. A peasant could have a staff and so could a king but they would look different and be different in function. 

[Marigold]

4 hours ago, Raggydoll said:

This is an interesting discussion! In Swedish all of those things just mentioned becomes more or less a non issue. We don’t use those words and the words we DO use have another set of meanings. So I tend to not worry about the English titles but rather work with my own direct understanding at what I see in the image

and what I believe an item is and can be used for. Maybe it can for once be a strength to not be a native English speaker 😛 

 

As a side note, the suit of clubs in playing cards are called ‘klöver’ here. It very simply means Clover. The shape of the symbol is definitely like a clover and I have never understood the clubs thing. (I do believe the French word for this suit means clover too?) Maybe European countries share a more similar view of some things and tend to describe them in a similar way? 

 

Yes, in French the playing card suit is called "trèfle" which is clover. 

 

But what are the words you use in Swedish then for the Batons and things ??

 

I think if one thinks of a ceremonial baton, then Baton actually works well in English. 

 

Edited November 29, 2019 by Marigold

[Marigold]

2 hours ago, Flaxen said:

The word ‘staff’ could work in English as it could be a practical implement (used for support or attack/defence) as well as more ornate/ceremonial. A peasant could have a staff and so could a king but they would look different and be different in function. 

Yes, staff would work too. Interesting. 

[devin]

On 11/28/2019 at 11:58 PM, Marigold said:

Nope. Not fitting. Clubs are made to plonk people on the head or murder them. Trolls carry clubs (I learned this in one of the Harry Potter books - remember that troll that was loose at Hogwarts ? Nasty fellow.) 

 

I think we're stuck with Batons. Sort of the Ceremonial Type. TdM King of Batons has a most impressive one. He's such a dandy isn't he that  King ?

🙂 Fair point, but, then again, batons always remind me of the police - they hit you on the head with them, they perform baton charges and they sometimes even fire baton rounds (rubber bullets). Even batons carried as a sign of rank have an unavoidably military overtone (think field-marshals, etc.) And the wood wielded by the knight, page, and shown in the ace, all look like cudgels to me. Even the King and Queen seem to be carrying what are stylised or ceremonial weapons of war. (You probably know more than I about regal symbolism. If so, please do enlighten!) 

On 11/29/2019 at 6:24 AM, Raggydoll said:

It very simply means Clover.

Ah, so that's why some systems read 'clubs' as lucky. 🙂

[Raggydoll]

2 hours ago, devin said:

🙂 Fair point, but, then again, batons always remind me of the police - they hit you on the head with them, they perform baton charges and they sometimes even fire baton rounds (rubber bullets). Even batons carried as a sign of rank have an unavoidably military overtone (think field-marshals, etc.) And the wood wielded by the knight, page, and shown in the ace, all look like cudgels to me. Even the King and Queen seem to be carrying what are stylised or ceremonial weapons of war. (You probably know more than I about regal symbolism. If so, please do enlighten!) 

Batons mean the same thing here (we say “batong”). There is nothing ceremonial about it and it’s always a weapon. And we say “stav” or “stavar” (plural) instead of Wand. Stav is very similar to ‘staff’. 

2 hours ago, devin said:

Ah, so that's why some systems read 'clubs' as lucky. 🙂

I believe so 😀

[katrinka]

21 minutes ago, Raggydoll said:

Batons mean the same thing here (we say “batong”). There is nothing ceremonial about it and it’s always a weapon. And we say “stav” or “stavar” (plural) instead of Wand. Stav is very similar to ‘staff’. 

I believe so 😀

Batons here are for showing off at football games, lol.
 

And yes, Clubs...in the Italian playing card decks, they're fiori, flowers.

Looking at them in TdM, there's variations...living branches, scepters...some do look like they're definitely for whacking!

[Marigold]

2 hours ago, Raggydoll said:

Batons mean the same thing here (we say “batong”). There is nothing ceremonial about it and it’s always a weapon. And we say “stav” or “stavar” (plural) instead of Wand. Stav is very similar to ‘staff’. 

I believe so 😀

That's it !!!!! STAVES. That's what they should be called. For me the matter is settled. 😎

 

1 hour ago, katrinka said:

Looking at them in TdM, there's variations...living branches, scepters...some do look like they're definitely for whacking!

The Queen certainly whacks. And hard. Slow to act, but when she does, ouch..... And her little friend the Valet is not as innocuous as he looks. 

 

 

 

[Starlight]

On 11/22/2019 at 2:26 PM, Raggydoll said:

I thought I would share some resources that I had bookmarked or saved on my hard drive. These relate to the different patterns/types of TdM and how to differentiate them.

 

First this website: http://tarotwheel.net/history/tarot development/the tarot of marseille/jean noblet.html

 

There was a newsletter called "Hunting the true marseille tarot" that seem to have vanished from the web, but I have a pdf copy that I saved. So I am attaching it below.

 

I also remember finding this webpage of interest, but again, part of the links and images seem broken:

 

http://www.destinyclemens.com/blog/the-tarot-de-marseille-made-simple-the-minor-arcana/

 

Luckily I have a pdf copy of that one too, and its attached below.

Thank you for these links, Raggydoll! 🙏

[Carla]

On 11/21/2019 at 6:11 PM, Flaxen said:

Camellia Elias is very influenced by Enrique Enriquez of ‘Tarology’. I think @Carla uses her techniques?

I love Camelia Elias and Enriquez but they are quite divisive, as mentioned. I love stripping away all esoteric correspondences from the cards and reading them 'dumb', as Enriquez calls it. 

[Losgunna]

Has anybody read the book/e-book ‘The Tarot Code’ by Carlo Bozzelli? What are your thoughts on this one?

He also collaborated/co-created a cleaned up Conver TdM version.

 

https://tarocchi.com/?lang=en

Edited December 2, 2019 by Losgunna

[_R_]

11 hours ago, Losgunna said:

Has anybody read the book/e-book ‘The Tarot Code’ by Carlo Bozzelli? What are your thoughts on this one?

He also collaborated/co-created a cleaned up Conver TdM version.

 

https://tarocchi.com/?lang=en

 

This book, published in English to no great acclaim some five years ago, proposes to give a potted "secret" history of the Tarot, along with an explanation of its “codes” and structures. Like many other books and decks before it, it is Conver-centric, to coin a new word, yet the translation is marred, again, like other works before it, by the use of RWS terminology.

 

The book is well-written and logically presented in spite of everything, and contains the now-usual mix of Jungian psychology, Gnostic secrets, classical allusions and iconography. However, it is clearly quite derivative of the ideas of Jodorowsky, Tchalaï, and Camoin. It follows the ideas of this last gent in its insistence on a French (and Magdalenic-Christian) origin of the Tarot, and on the “negative impact” of Paul Marteau, once again, unjustly accused of plagiarism and what not. (This was something of a trend in the 2000s.) There is a certain irony - not to say shamelessness - in this regard, if one considers the lack of references to these predecessors named above. (Camoin's codes are all over the place, yet the master is not named; Jodorowsky’s book is listed in the references, but that’s it; the book is otherwise littered with Tchalaï’s terminology, yet her name is conspicuous by its absence too.)

 

I must say, it strikes me as curious to speak of good faith while writing with such manifest bad faith, on the one hand, and on the other, to claim to hold a millennia-old historical narrative while being incapable of researching a deck published in 1930, not one hundred years ago.  It will be clear to anyone who bothers to look closely, that the Tarot as a commercial enterprise, whether on an artisanal scale or on an industrial scale, almost always involves disparaging (or wilfully neglecting) one’s predecessors, and the same goes for writing books too.

 

As usual, to be read with a large grain of salt. It may not provide definitive answers, but it should give you a good idea of how certain writers present their reading methodology behind a dense cloud of mythology.

 

Leaving all this aside for the moment, I will note the Camoinesque emphasis on the 3x7 structure, as per Maxwell and Wirth (if memory serves). Incidentally, and not picked up on by any of these “structuralists,” Marteau himself rejected this arrangement in favour of a 12+10 sequence, in one of the only non-detail-oriented comments in his book. (see here: https://smallcabin.org/2019/07/29/card-xii-the-hanged-man-le-pendu/)

[Losgunna]

On 12/3/2019 at 3:50 AM, _R_ said:

 

Like many other books and decks before it, it is Conver-centric, to coin a new word, yet the translation is marred, again, like other works before it, by the use of RWS terminology.

 

Leaving all this aside for the moment, I will note the Camoinesque emphasis on the 3x7 structure, as per Maxwell and Wirth (if memory serves). Incidentally, and not picked up on by any of these “structuralists,” Marteau himself rejected this arrangement in favour of a 12+10 sequence, in one of the only non-detail-oriented comments in his book. (see here: https://smallcabin.org/2019/07/29/card-xii-the-hanged-man-le-pendu/)

 

Thank you for your view and explanation!

 

Why is it that so many are focused on the Conver? (I’m totally new in TdM) Very curious about this? Why not the madenie for example or ...

 

Thank you for the link!

 

 

[Raggydoll]

15 minutes ago, Losgunna said:

 

Thank you for your view and explanation!

 

Why is it that so many are focused on the Conver? (I’m totally new in TdM) Very curious about this? Why not the madenie for example or ...

 

Thank you for the link!

 

 

The Madenie is based on the same pattern as Conver, they are both TdM II. You can see the different types here:

 

http://tarotwheel.net/history/tarot development/the tarot of marseille/jean noblet.html

[_R_]

1 hour ago, Losgunna said:

 

Thank you for your view and explanation!

 

Why is it that so many are focused on the Conver? (I’m totally new in TdM) Very curious about this? Why not the madenie for example or ...

 

Thank you for the link!

 

 

This is a good question, and one simple (if not simplistic) contributing answer is the desire to capitalise on the entire myth that has grown around this deck. In itself, it is an excellent example of the formation of a "tradition," in the strict sense of the word, and in inverted commas. Maxwell is another writer who made much of the Conver, in its 1880 Camoin incarnation. That book is also available in English, by the way.

 

Without going too far astray, or writing an essay on the subject, I will suggest that you browse the websites of those involved in restoring or producing facsimiles of Marseilles type decks, some sites are now in English and you will get a good idea of what I mean if you approach them with an open mind and a sceptical eye. You could always read Bozelli's book if the ideas expressed above tickle your fancy. At the very least, you would learn a functional reading system. 

 

Anyhow, in no particular order here are a few sites for you to browse around:

https://en.camoin.com/tarot/-Home-en-.html
https://tarot-de-marseille-heritage.com/english/historic_tarots_gallery.html
http://www.tarot-history.com/index.html

https://www.fourhares.com/

(Click on ‘Tarot’)

 

Edited December 5, 2019 by _R_

[Losgunna]

@_R_ So there is no perfected TdM suggested like Conver would be the perfect? Or the difference between type 1 & 2 (some even speak of 0, 1 & 2), not that 2 is better than 1? Something i want to grasp why this would be better than that.

My personal taste goes to the Noblet & Dodal. For me they are like modern art, and the Madenie for example is beautiful carved, such a skill. But this is just my taste/preference. I don’t know enough about the underlying structure/symbolism to know what is a good TdM deck to work with.

 

Thank you for the links!!!

will enjoy the new info 🙏🙏🙏

Edited December 5, 2019 by Losgunna

[Losgunna]

7 hours ago, Raggydoll said:

The Madenie is based on the same pattern as Conver, they are both TdM II. You can see the different types here:

 

http://tarotwheel.net/history/tarot development/the tarot of marseille/jean noblet.html

 

I already read this thanks to a link you or somebody else posted somewhere 🙏🙏🙏. i constantly come across the name/deckname Conver, so was curious what is special about this deck in regards to others.

 

Thank you so much for the help!

Edited December 5, 2019 by Losgunna

[Raggydoll]

Who has read this book:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Tarot-Italian-Renaissance-Meaning/dp/0956237010

 

I saw that it’s now on lulu but there were so few pages in the book that I wonder if it would be worth the price and shipping. Interested to hear what you have to say! 

[_R_]

8 hours ago, Losgunna said:

@_R_ So there is no perfected TdM suggested like Conver would be the perfect? Or the difference between type 1 & 2 (some even speak of 0, 1 & 2), not that 2 is better than 1? Something i want to grasp why this would be better than that.

My personal taste goes to the Noblet & Dodal. For me they are like modern art, and the Madenie for example is beautiful carved, such a skill. But this is just my taste/preference. I don’t know enough about the underlying structure/symbolism to know what is a good TdM deck to work with.

 

Thank you for the links!!!

will enjoy the new info 🙏🙏🙏

Define 'perfection.'  Unless you subscribe fully to the views of one or the other of these authors, you are better off going with your own personal taste on the matter. I am not sure if anyone in this thread mentioned Jean-Michel David's tome (it is based on a course he used to give); that uses the Noblet deck, and it could be applied to any Marseilles-style deck at all really. It is a hefty and demanding book, demanding in the sense that it is essentially a workbook, you must work through it rather than just read it and accumulate bits of knowledge. It is well worth the effort.

 

To return to the original question, I would hazard another guess and say that accessibility was also a factor in the enduring appeal of the Conver - it was kept in print throughout the 19th century (Camoin etc) and would have been available, unlike some of the other historical decks we now find in facsimile or on library websites.

 

 

[_R_]

9 hours ago, Raggydoll said:

Who has read this book:

 

https://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Tarot-Italian-Renaissance-Meaning/dp/0956237010

 

I saw that it’s now on lulu but there were so few pages in the book that I wonder if it would be worth the price and shipping. Interested to hear what you have to say! 

 

This is well worth reading if you are interested in learning how 2 early authors considered the symbolism and sequence of the Tarot. It consists of two essays, with the text both in English alongside the Italian original, so not very long at all. 

[Raggydoll]

1 hour ago, _R_ said:

Define 'perfection.'  Unless you subscribe fully to the views of one or the other of these authors, you are better off going with your own personal taste on the matter. I am not sure if anyone in this thread mentioned Jean-Michel David's tome (it is based on a course he used to give); that uses the Noblet deck, and it could be applied to any Marseilles-style deck at all really. It is a hefty and demanding book, demanding in the sense that it is essentially a workbook, you must work through it rather than just read it and accumulate bits of knowledge. It is well worth the effort.

 

To return to the original question, I would hazard another guess and say that accessibility was also a factor in the enduring appeal of the Conver - it was kept in print throughout the 19th century (Camoin etc) and would have been available, unlike some of the other historical decks we now find in facsimile or on library websites.

 

 

I am reading JMDs book but i do it in small chunks. It’s very meaty and contains lots of great information. I was also able to borrow the book by Lee Bursten so I’ve read that as well. I liked it! I can see why some purists will object to certain details but all in all it’s a really good and engaging book that’s easy to read.

 

Im currently also reading Camelia Elias. I have finished one of her texts and have two more to go. I’m getting a feel for her style and I’m a bit conflicted as to what I think. I will wait until I’ve finished reading all of the books before I make up my mind. 

[Starlight]

1 hour ago, Raggydoll said:

I am reading JMDs book but i do it in small chunks. It’s very meaty and contains lots of great information. I was also able to borrow the book by Lee Bursten so I’ve read that as well. I liked it!

 

1 hour ago, Raggydoll said:

Im currently also reading Camelia Elias. I have finished one of her texts and have two more to go.

I've been hesitant to read anything in case I start off on the wrong foot and trip myself up in my studies and understanding later on! I've been reading this thread trying to get a grasp of the pros and cons of all the resources mentioned. I've been looking at the JM David book and thought I might start there.

 

I also flung all my good intentions for Depth Year aside and ordered a mini Burdel TDM as well as the 90th anniversary Grimaud. (I already have Ben Dov's CBD). Fingers crossed I'm approaching this right. I suppose I'm worried about making a mistake and making the study of the TdM harder than it needs to be. I really admire your diving in to all those books, @Raggydoll!

[Flaxen]

JMD’s book is a great one to work through - I did it some years ago and got so much out of it. 

 

@Starlight, it’s worth reading a few different approaches and then putting it into practise. It’s in the reading of the cards that you’ll find what works for and you’ll end up with your own style. 

 

 

[_R_]

I want to address some of the notions expressed in this thread, namely, that there is a “right” way to study the Tarot - whatever that may mean - and that there is a “tradition” or a fixed system that one must or should follow. While this may be true of some the Anglo-Saxon “schools” such as the Golden Dawn, the BOTA, or Crowley’s followers, it is largely not the case as far as the French Tarot is concerned.

 

True, Etteilla, Papus, Wirth, among others, sought to elaborate a Tarot system, based on their personal interpretations and reading methodologies, but none of these have had any definite and lasting impact, at least, not in the institutional sense, so to speak. One reason is quite likely because they redrew or modified the cards quite significantly, thereby breaking with a perceived tradition.

 

To put it bluntly, there is no French school as such, there are French authors or Tarologists and their systems or methods and writings, and while many of these share commonalities, each reader or student is free to take what they please and adapt it for themselves.

 

This raises a couple of important points, in the general sense: what does it mean to study the Tarot, and to what end? Answer these questions for yourself and you will gain a much better insight into what these writings might have to offer you and how you might best approach the often contradictory and illusory world of the Tarot and its interpreters.

 

My own suggestion would be to gain a working knowledge of the general symbolism and iconography; Jean-Michel David’s book provides a good introduction to this. Robert O’Neill’s book is also valuable for this and the intellectual underpinnings, but so are dictionaries of symbols such as the ones by Cirlot and Gheerbrant, for instance. An open mind and sense of scepticism are also useful.

 

Reading methods and techniques are easily adapted to suit one’s own purposes, and need not rely on wooly theories, invented history and what not. In the French writings, the most

commonly-used spreads are the 4 (or 5) card cross, and the astrological wheel. There are others too, but you will find a good presentation of these methods on Andy B.’s blog.

 

The commonalities between French tarologists include an emphasis on reading with the trumps, interpreting the pips by means of a combination of suit + number + visual details, and an emphasis on the Grimaud deck. This has been the case for the past 100 years at any rate, until fairly recently.

[Raggydoll]

49 minutes ago, Starlight said:

 

I've been hesitant to read anything in case I start off on the wrong foot and trip myself up in my studies and understanding later on! I've been reading this thread trying to get a grasp of the pros and cons of all the resources mentioned. I've been looking at the JM David book and thought I might start there.

 

I also flung all my good intentions for Depth Year aside and ordered a mini Burdel TDM as well as the 90th anniversary Grimaud. (I already have Ben Dov's CBD). Fingers crossed I'm approaching this right. I suppose I'm worried about making a mistake and making the study of the TdM harder than it needs to be. I really admire your diving in to all those books, @Raggydoll!

I never hesitate when it comes to books or studies - I just dive in head first, always have 😆. The key to not getting overwhelmed or confused, for me, is to get a lot of practical experiences as well, so it’s not just theory floating around in my head. I need to actually work with my cards alongside it and look at everything new as angles and additions to the foundation I already have. I don’t replace my foundation (and I believe that even if I tried it would probably require amnesia for it to work) 😁. And knowing the solid foundation you have too, then I think you can safely start sampling things in any way you fancy 🙂

[Raggydoll]

15 minutes ago, _R_ said:

I want to address some of the notions expressed in this thread, namely, that there is a “right” way to study the Tarot - whatever that may mean - and that there is a “tradition” or a fixed system that one must or should follow. While this may be true of some the Anglo-Saxon “schools” such as the Golden Dawn, the BOTA, or Crowley’s followers, it is largely not the case as far as the French Tarot is concerned.

 

True, Etteilla, Papus, Wirth, among others, sought to elaborate a Tarot system, based on their personal interpretations and reading methodologies, but none of these have had any definite and lasting impact, at least, not in the institutional sense, so to speak. One reason is quite likely because they redrew or modified the cards quite significantly, thereby breaking with a perceived tradition.

 

To put it bluntly, there is no French school as such, there are French authors or Tarologists and their systems or methods and writings, and while many of these share commonalities, each reader or student is free to take what they please and adapt it for themselves.

 

This raises a couple of important points, in the general sense: what does it mean to study the Tarot, and to what end? Answer these questions for yourself and you will gain a much better insight into what these writings might have to offer you and how you might best approach the often contradictory and illusory world of the Tarot and its interpreters.

 

My own suggestion would be to gain a working knowledge of the general symbolism and iconography; Jean-Michel David’s book provides a good introduction to this. Robert O’Neill’s book is also valuable for this and the intellectual underpinnings, but so are dictionaries of symbols such as the ones by Cirlot and Gheerbrant, for instance. An open mind and sense of scepticism are also useful.

 

Reading methods and techniques are easily adapted to suit one’s own purposes, and need not rely on wooly theories, invented history and what not. In the French writings, the most

commonly-used spreads are the 4 (or 5) card cross, and the astrological wheel. There are others too, but you will find a good presentation of these methods on Andy B.’s blog.

 

The commonalities between French tarologists include an emphasis on reading with the trumps, interpreting the pips by means of a combination of suit + number + visual details, and an emphasis on the Grimaud deck. This has been the case for the past 100 years at any rate, until fairly recently.

Very good point, and well put!