If we say that only the Tarot de Marseilles is authentic, which one or ones are we talking about? What is the criteria for such an identification? Would age be the single determinant or are there identifying factors? I hope this is the correct forum for this inquiry. If not, please direct me.

I'd really like to have input on this so I can more intelligently respond to Tarot de Marseilles newbies (of which I truly am one).

Hello Lady:

Your post is interesting as it touches the very concept of "The Original Tarot" question.

A lot of Tarot of Marseille lovers (like us) like to think that "this is the one, the first".
But as historians research shows, the first one known, beyond many actual myths, is the group of decks called "Visconti Tarots", from the first years of XV century, created in Milan, Venecia and Florencia, and its known use was for a game called "Trionfi" (Triumphs), with different number of cards each one, all around 80.
You can check this in the Aeclectic Tarot site http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/visconti.shtml, and in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visconti-Sforza_tarot_deck.

The Marseille Tarot was created a century later, after France conquered Northern Italy and imported the game, with their own way of drawing it, a simplified version of the italian one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarot_of_Marseilles

First used just as a game.
Later was realized as a divination tool and standarized to 78 cards, first transferring dice combination meannings used since Greco-Egyptian times: by using 2 dices you have 21 number combinations (Majors without the unnumbered Fool), and using 3 you can get 56 (all the Minors) !
Maybe this is the origin of the legend about the "Egiptian Origin" of Tarot.
So, the cards have no egiptian origin, but the late associed divination possibilities has, later adapted to the 4 suits structure.

Then, the "authenticity line" for Tarot is:
Visconti -> Marseille -> Etteila (first one with illustrated minors) -> Golden Dawn -> Rider-Waite -> others...

The Marseille Tarot has a simplified version of the old Renaissance, Medieval, look and feel from the Visconti one, and a standarized structure. It became more suitable both for gaming purposes, and for divination.


But the most important thing is to make a personal comparision of different Marseille Tarot decks available to you, so you can get "the feelling" of each one, as this is how it is going to connect with your own mind, unconcious, spirit, ..., in order to be able to perform a divination reading.
You can star by seeing most of them in http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/marseilles.shtml, to get an idea.
But there is nothing like feelling the cards in your own hands, lying them in a spread, over different clothes, and trying to read them, to know if one particular deck is The One for You (in that particular time).
If you lay the very same spread with different decks you will notice this in a very clear way.
Make a collection with some of them, try them, and ... tell us how you feel with each one.
Your experience may be enlightening for many ... starting with you... and us.

Enjoy!

Thank you for your reply to my post of oh-so-long-ago. It is received with appreciation. Also, it is nice to revive this forum, is it not?

You will find me to be unorthodox in my appreciation of various Tarot decks, including the much beloved Tarot de Marseilles -- Tarots de Marseille? Case in point: I have become just a little familiar with the historic approach to the question of any deck or the Tarot in general. But I consider the historicity of any subject to be very subjective (pardon the pun). I answer what some would deem moronic questioning with what some would deem moronic answers. To the question of whether the Tarot came from the Gypsies, I answer yes. To the question of whether the Tarot came from Egypt, I answer yes. To the question of whether the Tarot came from India, I answer yes. To the question of whether the Tarot came from China, I answer yes. To the question of whether the Tarot came from Fez, Morocco, I answer yes. I have a favorite story about the origin of the Tarot, or actually, I have several favorites and do not proffer an intellectual argument in their defense. I consider the Tarot's story to be larger than fact, or any fact that history might reveal. I consider that the Tarot's origin rightly lies in myth. Myth is big enough to encompass the potential of the Tarot.

I think my question was not so much about the origins of the Tarot as it was to people's feelings about authenticity insofar as that goes in illuminating the origins of Le Tarot. I am not a history buff. Today's history is tomorrow's fantasy...that thing that once "discovered" becomes hammered into truth or The Truth. It then takes centuries to un-hammer that hammered truth, if ever it can be done, in order to "discover" the next truth. As storytelling is an intricate part of Le Tarot, so is it part of History. All is subject to rewrite with the next revelation.

Still, I am curious as to which stories people cling to in appreciation of Tarot, if any subjective determination is made as regards authenticity -- occult or exoteric. Admittedly, I would revel in seeing someone stand next to me on this issue of authenticity, to wave the flag of quirkiness proudly on high. Or, whatever else rings your bell might be interesting too. I've heard Waiteans go on. I'm interested in whether there might be any fresh ideas of feelings that people are not afraid to put out there and if those feelings or ideas would cause one to address matters of authenticity. What moves us to allegiance to one deck over another? I hope to have some personal responses. Be brave.
Thank you for helping me to clarify and to open up the possibility of additional responses.

Hello Lady!


It is great to read you here. And your fast answer shows how interested you are in Tarot, and feels good to share that sensation with you.

I found this site just two days ago, that´s why I posted a reply to your interesting question until now.



The "authenticity" issue becomes important when people starts to think in a fundamentalist way, and try to erase everything but "the truth".
You can see this dogmatic, sort of "mono-view frame" in action both in Jodorowsky´s book and in the Camoin website.

In the first case, he tells how he collected many many decks during his traveling years, but when he discovered "the original one" (TdM of course), he "throw all of them into the trash can", as no other has the "true symbolism that some wise men engrave into it", so "you don´t need anything else, but to deepen into".

In the second case, if you read in his website how Camoin implicitly believes that he is the repository of a sacred tradition (that starts with Mary Magdalen, Saint John´s Revelation foresees it, pass thru a monk, Juan Cassiano (Jean Cassien), and materializes into his family´s cards print shop, you just can expect them to establish a "Tarot Church" in the next future (or something like that).

When something becomes dogma: cuts off parts of the mind, and of the spirit.
It castrates:
"Thou shall not read false decks".



I DO LIKE your non-ortodox approach to Tarot, I share it, indeed.
That "poly-view" enables to have many ways to move, to advance, to know.
Diversity is the source for Evolution.
Only thru a pragmatic approach, thru practice and contrast with Reality, you can be sure that something really works, for You.


I LIKE many other Tarots besides our Marseille one.
And I´m going to give my opinon on them (and the ones I don´t like too), according to what they make me feel both by having used almost all of the listed below, and a few that I have just been able to see in internet.

First, in the TdM field:
I like the Fournier one above all others, its colors seem alive to me, feel warm, and inspiring. In the second place I have the Lo Scarabeo´s Universal Tarot of Marseille, that is a Fournier clone (but less expensive, so I can carry it everywhere).
The Convos and 1JJ ones make me feel something special, because their drawing style.
Lo Scarabeo´s Crystal one is good too.
Most of the others, with their lack of colors, or restricted color scheme, feel cold to me, but somethimes they are adequate for a very particular reading, for that particular time, or person.

In the Non-TdM field:
The Alchemical Tarot renewed, authored by Robert Place, is my favorite one. Its simbology and drawing are just great.
The Crowley´s Thot (and its clone, the Lo Scarabeo´s Liber T), and the Dame Fortune's Wheel Tarot by Paul Huson (with its Eteilla´s revival style) , are next.
I like Egyptian themed (Lo Scarabeo´s one, Egiptian Gods one, Anubis Oracle, and so on ...), and other mithological ones, as the Mythic one. The Aztec inspired feel very close to me (and should be to any other mexican reader).
Lo Scarabeo´s Bosco´s, and Dante´s ones, are really inspiring.
The Bright Idea Deck is really amazing with its modern rendering.
Oracle decks as the Lenormand one seem fine to me.
An assortment of different decks give valuable view, both for specific cards, and on what Tarot may mean for other ways of understanding symbology and life.


I DO NOT LIKE several tarots.

In the TdM field:
Those simple color and style ones, leave me indifferent, or even provoke some displeasure.
The Jodo-Camoin one, has good drawing, but terrible colors for me. I don´t like it. I bougth it while reading Jodorowsky´s book years ago, and have had time to test it.
This also happens with a Marteau version printed here in Mexico long time ago, and with some other of the "original ones", with truly ugly colors.
The Rodés-Sanchez´s one looks like a rip-off of the Jodo-Camoin one.

In the Non-TdM field:
I don´t like the Rider-Waite. Its cartoonish drawing style, colors, and "good-or-bad" narrow attributions, are against inspiration. I have to use it when reading some books, as most of actual bibliography is based on it. I use it scarcely as a reading tool, just when the feeling is right for it, and mostly in a mini version that works fine when aasking about a particular card, on mundane readings. Instead of it I prefer to use the Morgan-Greer one.
The Hermetic one, should be called "just another kabbalistic one", as it is out of focus regarding its name, and is just black-and-white, also.
Lo Scarabeo´s Atlantis, and other theme-oriented ones, are truly disappointing, but may have some use for special times, or on making an extension to an actual reading.
An Egyptian one printed in Argentina, is dissaponting because it has interesting Majors and drawing style, but its Minors are just another oracle without suits structure.


And finally some unorthodox stuff:

Starting a reading, I like to show many deck boxes to the consultant, and that he/she chooses the deck to use (no matter if I like or not), as it sets a general tone for me on how things come, but I may choose to use a complementary one to expand aspects of the base reading (or ask him/her to choose too!). It is a really exciting situation as not even you, the reader, know wich tool(s) will have to use!

When you have and use many different decks, there are some cards, that stand above the other equivalent ones, and you develop a special attachment to them.
I would like to have a Tarot with cards that come from many different decks. Some day I´m going to print something like that ... a true "Aeclectic Tarot" deck.
Meanwhile, many times when I see physically a card in an actual reading, my mind sees an image of the same in another deck, which links and complements the interpretation, and moves it into other directions ...


And what about you?
What do you like?
What you don´t?
How is your unorthodoxy?
It is great to "Tarot-know you" better.


Tristan.

tristansmx wrote:
......The "authenticity" issue becomes important when people starts to think in a fundamentalist way, and try to erase everything but "the truth".......Some of the purists make me want to gag. The "most authentic" Marseille depends on how one defines "authentic" and in any case is ephemeral. I am quite happy with the Conver-type Grimaud and the lovely new CBD (which was created by Yoav Ben-Dov, a former student of Jodorowsky). They are authentic enough, in my opinion, although they are disdained by certain purists.

Richard

Trivette, Purely on the basis of your recommendation of the CBD deck and what I read in a review at Aeclectic.net, I have just purchased the CBD deck. I'm interested in its being a development from the Conver deck. I have the Heron Conver deck and am wondering if it would serve me well to make comparisons with this new deck and the Heron deck. Anyone?
Oh, and thank you everyone for your responses that have continued this thread of discussion!