Cult of Tarot Forum

The more I look I look at the cards in this deck, the more I see subtle clues that the superficial appearances are deceiving.

At first glance it looks like a wealthy man is sharing with the poor. And in fact in "The Pictorial Key to the Tarot" by Waite, he says that the wealthy man is weighing the coins in the scale.



But as usual, I see something else afoot here.

I see coins being dropped (not placed in a kind way) into the hands of one of two beggars.

In the other hand the wealthy man holds a scale. There is nothing to indicate there are more coins in the scale, which stands in an even position, probably because it is empty. The other beggar, hands still out, has not received any coin.

I think the scale is symbolic of the way we weigh who we think deserves help and who does not and our reluctance to see people in need as our equals.

With that in mind, I will now jump back to the Waite book. He says the man giving his money to the poor, "..is a testimony to his own success in life, as well as to the goodness of his heart." He's not exactly saying that the man has a good heart, is he? If his charity is grudging or self-aggrandising then what does that say about the "goodness of his heart." But the fact he can lord over people and deign to help some (and not others) is a testimony, of sorts, to his success.

Whenever we "deign" to help someone be they a stranger, friend or family, it's not a bad idea to stop for a minute and check your own motivation and if it's not quite where it should be take a minute and make some adjustments. That's what this card means to me. It reminds me that we can always improve what we are putting out in the world, not just our actions, but the feeling behind those actions which is how we preserve and promote human dignity.

It can also indicate a person whose "charitable acts" may not be of the best intent.

I am really beginning to have a new appreciation for this deck and for the book by Waite. If you scratch the surface of the illustrations and the text you can really be surprised by what is there hidden in plain site.

I agree; I see in this card an opportunity to really step back and examine our notions about charity. The figure in the card seems like he's not actually sharing all that much, and the scale seems to indicate a careful rationing of what he's sharing, rather than sharing from a place of abundance and generosity. And yet the scale also is a reference to Justice- what is just? Giving a beggar a precisely-calibrated handful of coins? Or is it trying to make a world where no one is a beggar because all have enough?

I also see in the triangular arrangement of the figures a reference to the Lovers card (also a Six), and its funhouse-mirror counterpart, the Devil (numerologically a Six). Here, the man with the money stands in the place of the angel/devil, both "blessing" the beggars with his charity and also enslaving them by being content to live on top of the hierarchy of a world where there are beggars at the bottom.

I'd never noticed before but the 6 of pentacles is one of Waite's infamous "stage cards" where there is a straight line across the bottom of the card, and where the characters stand in the card on the "stage" as it were. This denotes that there is something not quite real about the situation (interestingly 2 of cups is a stage card). And a stage card also means it is not an event that it is going to happen but it is physiological and internal. This informs us that this card it is not about poverty nor richness but about our attitude toward it, as Joan Marie highlighted

just to add to the two great interpretations and insights above, (particularly Tomatosauce 2nd paragraph...brilliant!). True altruism for us humans is an extremely hard action or attitude. We "give" to get into a god-fearing heaven, to look good within the flock, although now the hypocrisy just comes up on facebook or google etc. We give to sort our karma out. We give because we think we should, and because everyone has given in the office/pub/school etc. Ask any female beggar with a drug problem on the street about their regular giver's who are men, and they'll tell you that 90% of them want sexual favours in the end.
When we give and don't expect something back,it makes us feel good. Is this true charity? true altruism ? No, we're doing it because it makes us feel good.
Real charity is not egotistical and gives for nothing but pure goodness and empathy; true humanitarianism is the doctor who gives up a "Cushy" job in a middle-class suburb with a good pension, and goes to work for nothing in the 3rd world, or in some godforsaken, very dangerous war zone. True philanthropy is the billionaire who gets criticized by the media and even his colleagues for being mean and greedy yet is giving most of his fortune to charity but keeping his good work silent, while he watches fellow billionaires build schools and wells and hospitals etc in Africa but have their names or logos of their brands emblazoned across the buildings, and people kissing their hands when they visit for the opening, and treating them like gods.

This is the complexities of the six of pentacles; it is making us question our motives after the greed of 4 of pentacles, and the poverty (whether it be spiritual or monetary ) of the 5 of pentacles. I cannot help but think of Dickens' Christmas Carol with these trinity of cards. The meanness of the 4 of pentacles, the spiritual truth and abandonment of the 5 of pentacles, and the reformation of the six. And the scales are there as more of a weighing up of the person: within the benefactor there are two sides -- one is the typical Christian Gentleman of Victorian/Edwardian London and on the other is the unique "Gentle Christian Man" (to quote from another of Dickens books), and Waite is asking which person are you? A very deep card.

Joan Marie wrote: ↑19 Sep 2018, 11:09
With that in mind, I will now jump back to the Waite book. He says the man giving his money to the poor, "..is a testimony to his own success in life, as well as to the goodness of his heart." He's not exactly saying that the man has a good heart, is he? If his charity is grudging or self-aggrandising then what does that say about the "goodness of his heart." But the fact he can lord over people and deign to help some (and not others) is a testimony, of sorts, to his success.

It's possible that Waite did see this image as someone successful giving to the poor out of the 'goodness of their heart' - it depends on Waite's background and view of the world, which I admit I know nothing about. There have always been those who consider themselves morally and in character superior to others because of their status and wealth, and thus able to deem who is 'worthy' to receive charity. If that was true for Waite he may well have viewed this as morally good person. I think it's worth remembering how society changes over time, how perceptions, morals, culture etc. change. So what was presented a century or more ago may not be seen as acceptable now. I find that quite interesting. Doesn't mean we can't read layers of meaning and alternative meanings though.

Looking at 'The Pictoral Key to the Tarot' I do think that he did mean the man was charitable in a positive way as he says "It is a testimony to his own success in life, as well as to his goodness of heart." I don't personally see any ambiguity in that statement.

By comparison, Crowley calls this card 'Success' in the Thoth deck, but says the condition is transient. So perhaps an alternative interpretation of Waite's image is that one may have success but one can always become poor or destitute.

I'm liking these posts on the cards, learning so much from them:)

Sixes in the Minors have a recidivist, derivating quality from their own suit; they turn back on themselves or step on their own toes or stray into left field from the closely defined attributes of their respective suits. they mirror themselves, and seem the same, but left is right and right is left. the most pronounced example is the 6 of Swords.
Coins are female, and the figure in the 6/Coins' centre is male, standing erect - the vertical [male] axis, while on either side of him grovel beggars on the ground - the horizontal [female] axis. as said above, the scale is balanced, in emulation of Justice, with the coins clearly going to the figure on the man's right. the one on the left is left out. the man decides who gets how much, who is right, and who gets shunned. in this way, seeing the correspondence to The Devil card is very apt here, since the rich man is replacing god in a sense - playing god, if you will. consider Christ's claim: For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. [Matt. 13:12]. here, the rich man is acting out Christ's claim, but of course Christ was speaking metaphorically about the spirit while the rich man is acting this out on the earthly plane, with money/power for his own gain. this is a literal understanding of what power is, as it is a literal understanding of the earthly suit of Coins - and note, it is a particularly male misunderstanding of this female suit. speaking of suits: the person who receives the rich man's charity is dressed in ochre, the colour of the Coins suit, while the one in blue, the colour of emotion/Cups, gets nothing; again, this indicates the material playing-out of the one who has being given more, while for the one without has even that taken away and displays its inherent unfairness. the balanced scales, above the one without's head, hover like insult to injury.
it was suggested that the 4 to 6 run of the Coin suit was reminiscent of A Christmas Carol. I would just point out if i may that the 5 of Coins in the Charles Dickens Tarot is indeed Bob Cratchet & Tiny Tim.

I still think that most people help out of compassion and pity, and not just because they have questionable motives. There are some who do it as a way of virtue-signaling like when they display their generosity in social media, but maybe most common folks just have a good heart. I don't think it's a bad thing when people personally feel good about helping.

I see the scales as indicating that one must be judicious when helping. Just the right balance - not too little lest it becomes insulting and not too much or you'd end up giving the shirt off your back.

I still think that most people help out of compassion and pity, and not just because they have questionable motives.

people certainly don't just [or only] give from questionable motives, it's just that charity can be mistakenly viewed as a wholly virtuous act when it's a] not that simple, and b] sometimes done for reasons less than virtuous.
recall the saying "power corrupts...", and what is happening here on a water/emotions card, but the transaction of money. money is power. what then are the emotions behind this transaction? the rich man may be alleviating his conscience. he may be flattering his ego. he may be making a tax-deductible contribution. or he may as you suggest just be trying to do something good. on a card of emotions we might read this as the good feeling he gets from giving, and the joy he who receives receives. but let's not forget the feelings of he who doesn't receive - the balanced scales are all well and good, and maybe the second beggar doesn't deserve a thing, but he nonetheless feels bad, resentful, angry, unfairly treated, etc.

I see the scales as indicating that one must be judicious when helping. Just the right balance - not too little lest it becomes insulting and not too much or you'd end up giving the shirt off your back.

there is truth in this, too. the scales do suggest this balance - and yet the rich man is giving all the money to one-half of the beggarly brethren, [whom themselves mirror the scale]. this is hardly "balanced". more to the point, what are scales [more the domain of Swords or Pentacles] doing in Cups? they divide and discern while ostensibly claiming fairness on the one hand [Swords] and then mete out pent-up material wealth [Pentacles] on the other. this can suggest that we need to control and evaluate and mete out our emotions, or it could actually suggest the opposite: namely, that to do so is antithetical to the emotional and spiritual essence of Cups/Water/Emotions, and tricking oneself in this way is fraught with pitfalls which lead ultimately to the unfair distribution of wealth, and the division it creates. recall Christ said "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." and when asked by a rich man how to get into heaven, He replied give away everything you own and become a beggar like me [to paraphrase]. and of course the rich man couldn't do that, just as here, on the 6 of Cups, the rich man distributes some of his possessions like it were his civic duty, but he equivocates - he gaineth the world and loses his soul. the scales, having yet to fall from his [and perhaps our] eyes, blind.

people certainly don't just [or only] give from questionable motives, it's just that charity can be mistakenly viewed as a wholly virtuous act when it's a] not that simple, and b] sometimes done for reasons less than virtuous.
recall the saying "power corrupts...", and what is happening here on a water/emotions card, but the transaction of money. money is power. what then are the emotions behind this transaction? the rich man may be alleviating his conscience. he may be flattering his ego. he may be making a tax-deductible contribution. or he may as you suggest just be trying to do something good.

I won't impute ill intentions against a man of charity. I'll judge a man by his actions and not his possible motives. If help is manifestly given but the card that I drew is reversed, I'd consider this.

on a card of emotions we might read this as the good feeling he gets from giving, and the joy he who receives receives. but let's not forget the feelings of he who doesn't receive - the balanced scales are all well and good, and maybe the second beggar doesn't deserve a thing, but he nonetheless feels bad, resentful, angry, unfairly treated, etc.

This is the Lord of Material Success, surely he has enough money for two. I've never seen him described as giving money to one party while ignoring the other, but if that's how you see it we can agree to disagree.

there is truth in this, too. the scales do suggest this balance - and yet the rich man is giving all the money to one-half of the beggarly brethren, [whom themselves mirror the scale]. this is hardly "balanced". more to the point, what are scales [more the domain of Swords or Pentacles] doing in Cups? they divide and discern while ostensibly claiming fairness on the one hand [Swords] and then mete out pent-up material wealth [Pentacles] on the other. this can suggest that we need to control and evaluate and mete out our emotions, or it could actually suggest the opposite: namely, that to do so is antithetical to the emotional and spiritual essence of Cups/Water/Emotions, and tricking oneself in this way is fraught with pitfalls which lead ultimately to the unfair distribution of wealth, and the division it creates. recall Christ said "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." and when asked by a rich man how to get into heaven, He replied give away everything you own and become a beggar like me [to paraphrase]. and of course the rich man couldn't do that, just as here, on the 6 of Cups, the rich man distributes some of his possessions like it were his civic duty, but he equivocates - he gaineth the world and loses his soul. the scales, having yet to fall from his [and perhaps our] eyes, blind.

You may be confused. We are talking about the 6 of Pentacles, not the 6 of Cups.

This is an interesting conversation on the nature of charity. It is something we are all faced with in life, asking for help or being asked for help.

This conversation so far has demonstrates what a complex topic it really is, and what a universal topic it is yet one we tend to consider as one of personal values or with skepticism or even as a political topic, that is if we even consider it all.

We can only judge our own motivation. And if it doesn't seem right, work on that.

My interpretation of this card is about finding true human dignity in this very touchy situation. Dignity for every party involved. Very few people know what is to give freely, completely ungrudgingly regardless of circumstances. I don't mean ALWAYS giving, but when one does give to do it freely. On the other side, many people who find themselves needing to ask for money (from family, whatever) often, to make themselves feel better about it, create resentments against the person who helped them in order to maintain a (false) sense of dignity. I mention this kind of thing for the purpose of demonstrating how difficult it can be to maintain dignity in these situations when motivations are not carefully thought through.

If I see the 6 of Pentacles I always think to check my intentions. Why am I asking for or giving help or support to someone? Or why am I not? This kind of soul-searching can turn up some very interesting results.

BlueStar wrote: ↑02 Oct 2018, 14:16 Looking at 'The Pictoral Key to the Tarot' I do think that he did mean the man was charitable in a positive way as he says "It is a testimony to his own success in life, as well as to his goodness of heart." I don't personally see any ambiguity in that statement.

I know what you mean, on the surface it sounds positive, and maybe I am parsing it too far but I can't help seeing an ambiguity here. As in, if he is being condescending or is otherwise negatively motivated to do a charitable (positive) thing, then the "testimony" may be that in fact his heart is not good. Like if you said "His apartment full of dead plants was a testimony to his green thumb."

I can't help but see the ambiguity in Waite's book. That's how my mind works but I concede I'm not necessarily correct. But I do find that is the fun of Waite's book. The descriptions are so short I can't help myself from looking for sub-text all the time.

BlueStar wrote: ↑02 Oct 2018, 14:16 I'm liking these posts on the cards, learning so much from them:)

I'm so glad. I will try this week to open up several more.

You may be confused. We are talking about the 6 of Pentacles, not the 6 of Cups

yes, you're right Amoroso, i was a little confused. of course the suit is Pentacles.
really, i'm arguing for the shadow aspects of the card, suggesting ways to view it other than the obvious.

Chiscotheque, upon reading my reply, I think it came across as harsh. I'm a blunt person but online communication does not convey nuances and tone, so I hope it didn't distress you. I'll strive to be better next time.

it certainly didn't distress me, Amoroso. one thing i thought was the comment: "I've never seen him described as giving money to one party while ignoring the other" was dismissive and a fallacious argument. because you've never seen something described a certain way doesn't make it untrue or invalid, all you have to do is look at the card to see he's giving the coins to one party. you can tell yourself stories like he's gonna give some coins to the other later or the two beggars will share the coins, but that's not what's actually depicted on the card.

chiscotheque wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018 07:09
it certainly didn't distress me, Amoroso. one thing i thought was the comment: "I've never seen him described as giving money to one party while ignoring the other" was dismissive and a fallacious argument. because you've never seen something described a certain way doesn't make it untrue or invalid, all you have to do is look at the card to see he's giving the coins to one party. you can tell yourself stories like he's gonna give some coins to the other later or the two beggars will share the coins, but that's not what's actually depicted on the card.

That is not fallacious tho - it is an entirely true observation of mine. In his Pictorial Key to the Tarot, Waite never described the man as giving only to one party while withholding his largesse from the other. I'm using the Pictorial Key as a resource since this is, after all, a study group for the RWS. Quoting from the book, he says

A person in the guise of a merchant weighs money in a pair of scales and distributes it to the needy and distressed.

When you distribute, you don't only give it to one person. You don't distribute to a single person. The word has a basic meaning, and its implication is crystal clear.

Also, I was never dismissive. I never said that your interpretation is "untrue or invalid", in fact I did the opposite. You didn't quote my whole statement. I wrote:

I've never seen him described as giving money to one party while ignoring the other, but if that's how you see it we can agree to disagree.

The term "agree to disagree" implies that while I may not agree with your opinion, I don't hold it against you since we all have different perspectives. I was never dismissive, nor did I imply anywhere that your opinion is untrue or invalid.

Now, now.

The beauty of this deck and what has given it a lasting quality that has lent itself so well to the craft of tarot reading is it's inherent ambiguity.
To take every word of the brief descriptions given by Waite so literally and without question would be to limit the art. The bible says an eye for an eye and lots of other things that if we don't stop to interpret or consider the context we miss the point.

I am not saying either of you is wrong, or right. But every viewpoint is valid because we all have eyes to see the art and we all can read and we all can interpret. That is the reason for having these discussion. The meanings are not set in stone. As a deck creator myself I know that what I saw and intended in my cards is only my perception. Other people see other things, expand on my ideas, and I am grateful for that. This is true of all art and all writing. There is always sub-text, or shadow meanings.

This is an exchange of ideas here. We can learn from each other, get new perspectives. It's not even about agreeing or disagreeing.

This is an exchange of ideas here. We can learn from each other, get new perspectives. It's not even about agreeing or disagreeing.

well said, Joan Marie.
personally, i find waite's comments in his pictorial key scant, one-dimensional, and almost risible, to the point they seem to conceal more than they reveal. not only that, but i would put forward 2 further observations against strictly limiting card meaning to waite's apparent perspective. they are: 1] waite did not invent the tarot, he simply modified it. there are things at work in it which he was not aware of or choose consciously to overlook or simply defied. like any person doing anything, they are not in complete control of every aspect of that creation - especially one which is an adaptation of something as varied and compound as the tarot. 2] waite may or may not have intended this or that, but we as individuals coming each in our own way to his tarot have the prerogative to interpret and react to the work as we do, and the more detailed that interpretation is, generally speaking, the more merit it has. if we were restricted to what waite had to say in his barren book, we could just reproduce here his sad entries and have done with it.
consider a simple analogy: the ballad Scarborough Fair, made up of various words and a chordal pattern in a variety of keys, has been played and altered by thousands of people since its unknown inception. Simon & Garfunkel released one version of it, and while they may have first-hand understandings of their version, what they may "know" of that version is not the end all and be all of that version's understanding. indeed, a person familiar with a great many variations of the ballad through history including S&G's, and who themself reads and writes music and plays the song in their own way, may have insights into the song generally and S&G's version specifically which they themselves were unaware of - or at least didn't reveal in one particular bit of writing they did on the song.

Yes, I think the scant nature of Waite's book is why discussions like these about each of the cards are so important, so interesting and so full of surprises.

I agree that we should respect all opinions and interpretations. It's so unfortunate if someone chooses to limit their range by what their eyes see, thinking for example that since a character is depicted as only giving to one party it should strictly be discussed as such while never considering that a story might be behind it.

chiscotheque wrote: ↑14 Oct 2018, 05:09 all you have to do is look at the card to see he's giving the coins to one party. you can tell yourself stories like he's gonna give some coins to the other later or the two beggars will share the coins, but that's not what's actually depicted on the card.

It would be sad if they imply that other opinions are wrong and say they're just "telling themselves stories" just because others want to interpret them differently or (horrors!) by the book. We're supposed to accept a variety of opinions here, right? One can choose to box one's ideas by what their eyes see, though one opens oneself up to deception if they do that.

If someone chooses to incorporate the Pictorial Key to their repertoire then it should not be thought of as a negative thing. The book has been published for more than a century, and if it was so terrible then USG would not have included it in their Original Rider Waite and Commemmorative sets, which sold very very well by the way. Since it is the only book Waite wrote that addresses his very own deck, it would be strange if it was excluded from a discussion of the RWS. I'm glad that Joan Marie welcomes a diversity of opinion in these study group threads, so that book meanings are still welcome.

I myself never bind my personal set of meanings to a book - that would be unproductive. Just as I would never limit myself simply to what my eyes see, I'd never confine myself to a single book, as my comments in this and in the other study group threads handily show. Like I said in my very first comment here:

Amoroso wrote: ↑04 Oct 2018, 05:52 I see the scales as indicating that one must be judicious when helping. Just the right balance - not too little lest it becomes insulting and not too much or you'd end up giving the shirt off your back.

That certainly isn't in the book.

I learned something very important in this thread which will personally serve me in good stead. In any case, this is my last piece on this.

So if im understanding this correctly, Waite says money is distributed to the needy.

Society makes a lot of decisions and judgements about who his needy and who is not, who is deserving of help and charity and who is not, and how much they need and deserve.

Waite neither says money is given to all beggars nor that it is only given to some?

Personly speaking, I think there is a lot of room for interpretation here.

The scales suggest to me some kind of measure of need or degree of deserving.