Confused over astrological minor arcana attributions
-
Hi All,
Let me start by saying I am very confused and frustrated on why and how we should interpret the astrological attributions of the minor arcana. If I've missed a good thread or even article/book summarizing this, please let me know.
I have a lot of difficulty wrapping my head around *why *the minor arcana even have their astrological attributions - because they seem very arbitrary to me. Why bother to put them? The fact that only the classical planets are used, and that we have Mars "back to back" from the last decan of Pisces into the first decan of Aries to give extra "spring time" push (according to some explanation somewhere, possibly DuQuette's Thoth Tarot book) seems like a inadequate explanation to me.
I would appreciate ideas on how to use these correspondences in a card's interpretation. I am still confused after reading in some threads here that instead of, e.g., 3 of Wands being "Sun in Aries" we should interpret it as the Sun part of Aries (I might be botching Jim's words there...
)On top of this, the Tarot decanate divisions mismatch the astrological decanates and "sub rulers": for example, 3 of Disks in Tarot is "Mars in Capricorn" and should represent 10-20deg Capricorn. In Astrology (only Tropical perhaps??) that should be the Taurus subdecan of Capricorn, so I would logically expect Venus (Taurus' ruler) in Capricorn as the Tarot attribution.
Additionally, using the example of the 3 of wands, we have an additional consideration of Saturn and the element of Fire/Aries. I am confused how this should shade our interpretation. One book on GD tarot (Zalewski) suggests this as a secondary astrological attribution to be considered even beyond the "X planet in X sign" that is so obviously printed on the cards.
I know I can't be the only one dissatisfied, because I've seen alternate approaches by different Tarot decks. For example, there's a deck called (I think) the Astrological Tarot, and there's the Jungian Tarot by R Wang. Both have their own simplified attributions.
Lastly, and in a similar vein, is there solid reasoning behind the practice of the Court card attributions "mixing" zodiac signs so that, eg Knight of Swords = 20 taurus to 20 gemini? I also find this to be unsatisfactory to me so far...
Many thanks
-
Let's start from scratch and rebuild this, so far as possible in a short forum answer.
The primary attributions of each of the Minor Arcana (10 cards in 4 suits) are the 10 Sephiroth in the 4 Worlds (or, alternately, in the 4 Elements - depending on contextg, one can interpret this either 'horizontally,' on the same plane, as elemental differentiation, or 'vertically,' as in the 4 Worlds - as I do Tarot, the latter is usually more useful, but not always).
Similarly, the primary attributions of the Major Arcana are the 22 Hebrew letters (22 Paths); and of the Court Cards, the permutation of Y.H.V.H. multiplied against itself, essentially the 4 Worlds (vertical) expressed through the 4 Elements (horizontal).
But, as you mention, the non-Ace Minors also have a zodiacal expression. (The Aces are the root ideas of each of the elements expressed through the zodiac.) It's possible that this idea originated with the founders of the Golden Dawn but, if it did, it's a great example of their genius; because it often cuts right to the quick of practical Tarot attributions.
The correspondence of the 36 non-Ace Minors is to the 36 decanates of the zodiac. I'll say, as a caveat, that nothing here addresses whether there is actual astrological significance in such divisions with such attributions; in fact, there is not. But there is, nonetheless, a historical set of astrological associations that make worthy symbols for other purposes, such as Tarot.
Of the various methods of plantary attribution outlined by Claudius Ptolemy in his Tetrabiblos, the scheme that has the best fit for the Qabalistic model is the one based on the so-called Chaldean sequence of the planets - the same sequence as the plantary series of the planets in relation to the Sephiroth. This sequence is followed around the zodiac. Because 7 x 5 is only 35 and there are 36 zones, there is one extra decanate which has to double up - and the ancient method of doing this (preceeding 1st Century CE) was to begin Aries, and end Pisces, with Mars.
The match of these to historic Tarot meanings are so exacting in most places that the simplest conclusion is that these traditional meanings were originally conceived by someone who had a priori adopted this astrological symbol set as an interpretive matrix.
So - to be clear - each sign is conceived of as being divided into three 10° parts (decanates). The first third of Aries also is seen as being especially of the nature of Mars (as is all of Aries), the second third as being Solar, and the last third as being somewhat of the nature of Venus. (I repeat: We know this isn't valid astrologically. It's a theoretical scheme applied to a non-astrological symbol set, viz., Tarot.) The first 10°, in this scheme, is the particularly martial part of Aries; the second 10° is the especially solar part; and the last 10° is an especially venereal part.
Similarly, the 10° of Leo, in this scheme, is a Saturn part of Leo; the second 10° is a Jupiter-like part of Leo; and the third 10° is of the nature of Mars.
These are applied to the Minor Arcana as follows: The three signs attributed, since Medieval times, to one of the four Elements are attributed to the corresponding suit. The Cardinal sign is given to the first three Sephiroth below Kether; the Fixed sign to the next three; and the Mutable sign to the final three. Thus, in Air or Swords, the 2, 3, and 4 correspond to the three decanates of Libra; the 5, 6, and 7 to the three decanates of Aquarius; and the 8, 9, and 10 to the three decanates of Gemini.
Each of these Minors has two primarily pairs of attributions: (1) Sephirah and Element/World. (2) The planet-sign pair characterizing the assigned zodiacal decanate.
Take the 5 of Wands, for example. It is, first of all (and, I personally think, primarily) the expression of Geburah/Mars (5) in Fire (Wands). It is, secondly, an expression of the first decanate of Leo, which is a Saturn decante. So you have, for this card, two symbol pairs: Mars/Fire and Saturn/Leo.
In practice, I find it useful to start understanding a card by understanding Sephirah in Element or World. So, I start this one by observing that the four 5s all show an experience of Severity in terms of the part of the psyche corresponding to the element (in this case Fire; it's a severity and suffering with respect to the Will); and that a matching Strength is needed to overcome it. So, simply put, the card shows conflict of will. (Waite's depiction of a brawl between different staffs pointed every which way is brilliant! It's a brawl within oneself of competing, conflicting will-expressions pointed every which way.) One must discover the particular Strength needed to overcome this. Next, I'll note the decanate symbolism, and particularly the planet. (I rarely find much use of the sign, other than to tell me whether it is likely to be a best or worst description of the planet; but there's some, and see below with respect to meditating on the card.) Saturn is in her detriment in Leo, so this overthrows any faint hope that it would somehow be marking this as a (simplistically experienced) "good" card - it's going to be harsh and restrictive and harrowing. Finally, I'll blend the two planets - Mars & Saturn - and note that the essential nature of this planet blend is struggle, conflict, wrestling with something, etc. - Putting all these together, I come to a general understanding of the card.
One can go for a deeper, more esoteric meaning by thinking more purely on Geburah in Atziluth in all of its depths, rather than just "Severity in Fire;" but the latter approach is more useful for the simple "state of mind" psychology of most Tarot divination.
One can also create a meditation pattern to unlock more subtle meanings. Place the Tower (for Mars), Lust (for Leo), and the Universe (for Saturn) side-by-side. (One can also add the Aeon for Fire - but I find this overwhelms an entire suit. Nonetheless, it can be useful, so I sometimes will place it above the other three.) Meditating on these cards will disclose many and deeper patterns not previously evident.
-
Now, to return to some of your specific questions etc, that I may not have covered in the prior.
@Escarabaj said
"Let me start by saying I am very confused and frustrated on why and how we should interpret the astrological attributions of the minor arcana."
"Why" is rarely a useful question. The best answer in this case is probably, "Because that's how the system was conceived, and if you want to understand what everyone else is saying, then you need to use the same language." - At the very least, you should now see that they aren't arbitrary: There's a pattern and method.
As for how... I think I covered that above.
"I would appreciate ideas on how to use these correspondences in a card's interpretation."
See above.
"I am still confused after reading in some threads here that instead of, e.g., 3 of Wands being "Sun in Aries" we should interpret it as the Sun part of Aries (I might be botching Jim's words there...
)"As you likely will have gotten by now, the 3 of Wands corresponds to the second decanate of Aries, which (in the schema employed) is the Mars decanate. That card has two primary symbol sets: (1) Binah in Fire or Atziluth, and (2) the second (solar) decanate of Aries. Think of it as Binah in Atziluth (or, sometimes, Binah in Fire), and to have a solar quality - the best kind of solar quality since the Sun is Exalted in Aries. You can then combine Sun and Saturn (generally in a positive, best-case sense of the planets) for further insight. Finally, for deep meditation on the card, you could set out The Universe, The Emperor, and The Sun (Saturn, Aries, Sun), with The Aeon above them (Fire/Wands) for deeper meditation on the card.
"3 of Disks in Tarot is "Mars in Capricorn" and should represent 10-20deg Capricorn. In Astrology (only Tropical perhaps??) that should be the Taurus subdecan of Capricorn, so I would logically expect Venus (Taurus' ruler) in Capricorn as the Tarot attribution."
That's a very modern approach. As explained before, the scheme used is much older. - In brief: Different scheme.
"Lastly, and in a similar vein, is there solid reasoning behind the practice of the Court card attributions "mixing" zodiac signs so that, eg Knight of Swords = 20 taurus to 20 gemini? I also find this to be unsatisfactory to me so far..."
"I don't know for sure the original reasoning, and I do suspect that it began with the GD founders. However, I'm quite fluent at employing it! <g> (I've probably written more extensively on the Court Card interpretations than anyone else alive.) The root idea of the Court Cards, of course, is YHVH through the four elements, so that Knight of Swords is Yod of Air (e.g., outpouring root-will expressed through the field of intellect). But for the decanates, lay out the Minor Arcana correspond. Thus, for the last decanate of Taurus put 7 of Disks, and for the first two decanates of Gemini put the 8 and 9 of Swords. Now, you might immediately see that Interference and Pain & Suffering already tell a great deal about this card! I've found that, in general, the two same-sign cards tend to form a pair that gives a good nut-shell of the Court Card, while the back-sign one shows a shadow or over-compensation element when the root idea fails and we fall back into compensatory patterns.
Just taking the same-sign pair, you get the following summaries, for example:
Knight of Wands: Swiftness & Strength
Queen of Wands: Dominion & Virtue
Prince of Wands: Strife & Victory -
Thanks for this exhaustive posting!
I will have to spend a good bit of time re-reading it to absorb it best.@Jim Eshelman said
"Of the various methods of plantary attribution outlined by Claudius Ptolemy in his Tetrabiblos, the scheme that has the best fit for the Qabalistic model is the one based on the so-called Chaldean sequence of the planets - the same sequence as the plantary series of the planets in relation to the Sephiroth. This sequence is followed around the zodiac. Because 7 x 5 is only 35 and there are 36 zones, there is one extra decanate which has to double up - and the ancient method of doing this (preceeding 1st Century CE) was to begin Aries, and end Pisces, with Mars."
Ok well that clears that up. I was unaware that this was actually in use before the more popular system today (i.e. 3rd decan of Aries is "Sagittarius")
"Each of these Minors has two primarily pairs of attributions: (1) Sephirah and Element/World. (2) The planet-sign pair characterizing the assigned zodiacal decanate."
I will go back to my original question, and rephrase a bit. I know we can use Saturn for Binah (as you've said, put the Universe down in meditation), but do you have a preference for using the non-classical planets for Chockmah and Kether? Or should we avoid planetary attributions at all? In one book, Neptune is given as Kether and Uranus as Chockmah. Of course, I've seen other permutations which seem to make better sense to me. And, of course, which cards should represent those planets? (Aeon- Pluto? Fool - Uranus? Hanged Man - Neptune?)
"(Waite's depiction of a brawl between different staffs pointed every which way is brilliant! It's a brawl within oneself of competing, conflicting will-expressions pointed every which way.) "
I am fond of those illustrations, even though I don't use the deck often. As an aside, what do you think in general of the Rider-Waite minor arcana?
"One can go for a deeper, more esoteric meaning by thinking more purely on Geburah in Atziluth in all of its depths, rather than just "Severity in Fire;" but the latter approach is more useful for the simple "state of mind" psychology of most Tarot divination."
Did you mean "former approach" instead, btw? One of my difficulties is even conceiving of the four worlds and trying to get the nuance out of the sephiroth in the higher ones. I suppose that comes with hard work and time.
"I've found that, in general, the two same-sign cards tend to form a pair that gives a good nut-shell of the Court Card, while the back-sign one shows a shadow or over-compensation element when the root idea fails and we fall back into compensatory patterns. "
Very interesting! I will have to consider this more often. Really neat way to look at it.
-
@Escarabaj said
"I know we can use Saturn for Binah (as you've said, put the Universe down in meditation), but do you have a preference for using the non-classical planets for Chockmah and Kether?"
That's a quite different question than the subject of the current thread. To answer it, though: One can come up with various theories about such attributions, and most people probably think their way through this at one time or another; but there are no formal or even universally agreed attributions.
With regard to the present question, it doesn't matter so much because the real question is how one would (for example) understand Chokmah. You bring to it whatever is your present understanding.
(It's a slight cheat, I suppose, but the 2s are among the least Sephirah-specific of the cards. They easily deal with duality in their respective element.)
"And, of course, which cards should represent those planets? (Aeon- Pluto? Fool - Uranus? Hanged Man - Neptune?)"
That was Case's approach, and not wholly objectionable. It has value. But it also sacrifices some knowledge of what those letters actually mean in the larger scheme of Qabalah. "Ya wins some and ya loses some."
"
"(Waite's depiction of a brawl between different staffs pointed every which way is brilliant! It's a brawl within oneself of competing, conflicting will-expressions pointed every which way.) "I am fond of those illustrations, even though I don't use the deck often. As an aside, what do you think in general of the Rider-Waite minor arcana?"
Mostof them are frigging great! Most of the time, they capture the real spirit of the root idea exceptionally well. (I speak of the images, not so much of what Waite wrote about the images. So maybe Pamela Coleman Smith gets the credit?)
"
"One can go for a deeper, more esoteric meaning by thinking more purely on Geburah in Atziluth in all of its depths, rather than just "Severity in Fire;" but the latter approach is more useful for the simple "state of mind" psychology of most Tarot divination."Did you mean "former approach" instead, btw?"
No, I meant latter, i.e., "just 'Severity in Fire.'"
"One of my difficulties is even conceiving of the four worlds and trying to get the nuance out of the sephiroth in the higher ones. I suppose that comes with hard work and time."
Yes. There aren't a lot of great discussions. I did my best to revisit these descriptions in the introduction to The Mystical & Magical System of the A.'.A.'..
-
Thanks again for the information.
@Jim Eshelman said
"That's a quite different question than the subject of the current thread. To answer it, though: One can come up with various theories about such attributions, and most people probably think their way through this at one time or another; but there are no formal or even universally agreed attributions. "
The reason I asked that was because some books on Tarot *do *give such astrological attributions to be considered- the one I had in mind was Golden Dawn Tarot by Zalewski.