Comparison of the Courts in the Tarot of Marseilles

[Diana]

Here are some notes I took while observing the Kings of the TdM earlier today. I found them quite interesting, so I thought maybe someone else would too. I've titled the thread "courts" because if there is one day a comparison of the other courts, I think it would be better to have them altogether. Reference cards are from the Grimaud TdM.

The Kings in the TdM are the only four of the different ranks who are all looking in the same direction – to the symbolic future. But only the King of Batons is firmly anchored in that direction.

Two are unbearded – the younger pair who are holding symbols of authority, the Ceremonial Baton and the Sword. Two are bearded and older, and these two are holding different kinds of symbols. In fact, the King of Swords is actually also holding what may be a Baton, much smaller, or else it's a second sword, but there's that pommel that reminds one of the King of Baton’s mighty Baton. But that may just be incidental.

Both the King of Swords and King of Batons wear ceremonial clothes. The other two are wearing everyday clothes. The King of Swords’s clothes seem suitable for outdoor activities, and he is outdoors. The others are seem to be indoors although for the King of Batons one can't be sure.

The King of Swords's attributes, decorations, etc. show that he is hugely powerful.

The King of Deniers is the one who has the most references to the Majors (e.g. Emperor and Bateleur, maybe Fool). He’s sitting on what looks like a portable chair rather than a throne or something evoking a throne like the three others. The King of Deniers is also the only one not wearing a crown but a hat. He’s truly the Odd Man Out.

The two crowns of the King of Swords and King of Batons are very similar, but the King of Swords’s is more luminous.

Only the King of Batons is wearing red shoes. The others wear blue shoes.

The King of Cups’s seat is on top of some stairs. The others may too, but it’s not evoked.

The King of Swords’s throne has symbols on it. I don’t know what these represent and I would like to know. As _R_ mentioned somewhere, Grimaud was very likely a freemason but I don't know much about freemasonry symbols. They don't look like something I've ever come across in that regard. Maybe there is no connection.

[Charlie Brown]

The King of Cups’s seat is on top of some stairs. The others may too, but it’s not evoked.

It does seem implied by the positions of their right feet (left side of the card) that the Kings of Wands and Swords are elevated in someway. What IS clear, however, is that the King of Deniers is seated outside. Again, he's the odd man out.

The King of Swords's attributes, decorations, etc. show that he is hugely powerful.

I've never been quite sure what to make of the fact that the King of Swords also seems to have a wand. Other members of the court, though not other kings, also have other suits at times. That seems significant, but I don't quite have a handle on it.

[Diana]

Yes, it's odd that one finds an element of another suit sometimes. As in the Queen of Cups who has a sword. The Queen of Coins has a kind of a sceptre, but it doesn't really look like a baton. More a normal kind of sceptre.

I did notice today when I was working with the Courts to explore their reverse meanings, that the King of Batons and the King of Swords have something very similar in nature that the other two don't have to such an extent (although they also have it). It's their brutality and ruthlessness. Very nasty characters when reversed. And both exhibiting extreme savagery. I had images of Idi Amin Dada and likes floating before my eyes for ages. Most disagreeable.

The King of Wands and Swords are elevated, but I think the steps apparent in the King of Cups are significant. Steps are very symbolic.

[Diana]

And here are some notes I made on the QUEENS.

The Queen of Batons is the only one facing to the right, the symbolic future.

All the Queens, except for the Queen of Coins has long white hair (white I believe would refer to spiritual matters ?). All without exception are holding some symbol of authority – such as a sword, a ceremonial baton, or a sceptre in the case of the Queen of Coins (even the Queen of Cups is holding a Sword). I wonder why the Queen of Batons has blue hair.

The Queen of Swords is visibly pregnant. She’s sitting in front of some kind of throne that reminds one of Justice of the major arcana. So maybe she has a connection to Justice.

They Queen of Cups has a most unusual chair – is it a veil ? A canopy ? It is a reminiscent of what is behind La Papesse ? Is there a relation between the two ?

The Queen of Cups and the Queen of Swords seem to be a pair, whereas the other two seem to be more distinctive.

The Queen of Cups has a most peculiar crown – half hat, half crown. With a strange red half circle on it.

They are all seated, except for the Queen of Coins who has a seat but is standing. Not only does she not have white hair, but she’s also wearing a headdress that is very different from the others – a sort of mixture between a hat and a crown.

In the suit of court Cups, the Queen of Cups is the only one who has the cup covered with a lid. This must surely have some significance. I believe that she is the bearer of the Ace of Cups - and therefore has perhaps the most important role of all the Courts because the Ace of Cups holds all the essence of the Tarot within it (I think.) It is the only card of this suit where the lid is covered - all the minors have uncovered cups (excluding the Ace of Cups which is unique and which deserves a whole thread of its own).

As with the Kings, it's the Queen of Deniers who is the Odd (wo)man out.

[Diana]

The Queen of Batons is the only one facing to the right, the symbolic future.

No, that can't be right. She's facing left.

I must have got the Kings wrong then too.

[Maskelyne]

I've never been quite sure what to make of the fact that the King of Swords also seems to have a wand.

I think that may be just the ambiguous nature of old woodcuts. It looks more sword-like on the Conver (Heron) KoS, and even has a hilt on the Vieville. (The Vieville King is one of many cards in that deck which were engraved in reverse).

[dodalisque]

The King of Cups’s seat is on top of some stairs. The others may too, but it’s not evoked.

What IS clear, however, is that the King of Deniers is seated outside. Again, he's the odd man out.

Maybe it's just that Coins is the suit of the element of Earth, so the King of Coins has his throne set on the ground. Also, the Page of Coins is the only Page with his feet set firmly on the ground with his title written sideways on the edge of the card.

[Diana]

Maybe it's just that Coins is the suit of the element of Earth, so the King of Coins has his throne set on the ground. Also, the Page of Coins is the only Page with his feet set firmly on the ground with his title written sideways on the edge of the card.

Now that's a clever observation. Thank you !! Funny how one doesn't see things sometimes that are staring one in the face.

In fact the King seems to have picked up the second coin that was buried in the ground of the Valet de Deniers. It'a interesting to see these two side by side and the position of the Deniers. It's odd that both cards have two coins.

One really needs to study these courts together. They tell a story don't they ? I think I'll do the comparison between the Pages and Knights - I'd forgotten about this thread. I did mean to continue.

Of course, the Courts of this suit look after the earth and tend to it. The Knight of Coins could represent Greta Thunberg.

[dodalisque]

In fact the King seems to have picked up the second coin that was buried in the ground of the Valet de Deniers. It'a interesting to see these two side by side and the position of the Deniers. It's odd that both cards have two coins.

The King has stolen the naive Valet's savings. The bent right leg makes the King of Coins look very like The Emperor (and their opposite, the powerless Hanged Man) but he's not wearing a crown, more like a merchant's hat, so this man's power comes from money and business not from his title. Both the Knight and King have their eyes focused only on money. The buried coin on the Knight card and the coin hugged to the King's lap both suggest an obsession with security and perhaps investment, since buried coins might be thought to put out fresh shoots like the plants. The King looks similar to the RWS 4 of Coins. The bent leg even resembles a number "4".

[Diana]

The King has stolen the naive Valet's savings. The bent right leg makes the King of Coins look very like The Emperor (and their opposite, the powerless Hanged Man) but he's not wearing a crown, more like a merchant's hat, so this man's power comes from money and business not from his title. Both the Knight and King have their eyes focused only on money. The buried coin on the Knight card and the coin hugged to the King's lap both suggest an obsession with security and perhaps investment, since buried coins might be thought to put out fresh shoots like the plants. The King looks similar to the RWS 4 of Coins. The bent leg even resembles a number "4".

So this King is a capitalist. Damn him. Which court card can start up a revolution ? When I was studying the reversed meanings of the TdM, I named the King of Swords "Patricide" and the Knight of Batons "Treason". Our King of Deniers should keep a close eye on them if he wants to retain his ill-gotten power. I called his evil twin "Plunder". Which fits well with what you said about him having stolen the Valet's savings.

The bent leg in the TdM has always been considered to have a great significance.

[_R_]

Diana, in Tchalaï's book (her again), she derives a type of "group theory" based on the directions of the court cards' gazes, and in the case of the kings, finds that it corresponds to unanimity, given that they are all looking in the same direction. The other functions (i.e. Queens, Horsemen, Valets) form groups based on compromise (2-2) or on majority-opposition (3-1).

[Diana]

Thanks for that _R_.

Have you ever read anything ever about the odd symbols on the throne of the King of Swords ? Would they be something to do with Freemasonry? Or Rosicrusianism ? They can't be there just for decorative purposes. He's a fine one with the Sun and the Moon on his epaulettes. And enlightened too to some extent with the light emanating from his crown. He could almost be sitting on a grave. Which makes me think Freemasonry. They do "die" during their first initiation don't they ?

Although jmd (Jean-Michel David for people who may not recognise the jmd) always said that there was nothing of a Freemason origin in the Tarot of Marseilles. Which I never fully accepted in spite of his being a Freemason and all. Freemasons are ancient - and mixed up in all sorts of things. And originating in the stonebuilders and cathedral builders. And the Tarot and the stonebuilders are not strangers to each other in a historical sense.

[Diana]

Thanks for that _R_.

Have you ever read anything ever about the odd symbols on the throne of the King of Swords ?

One of the symbols on the King of Swords' throne may be the alchemical symbol of eggshell. As regards the other symbol, I'm still looking.

[_R_]

Have you ever read anything ever about the odd symbols on the throne of the King of Swords ?

I did read about this before, but I do not recall where. However, it turns out that it is not a symbol as such, but rather, a somewhat debased form of a curlicue, which we can see quite clearly on earlier decks, e.g. on the Noblet. (click the link to view, the image would not display properly).

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... 19.highres

And here's another image taken from D'Allemagne's work.

[Diana]

I did read about this before, but I do not recall where. However, it turns out that it is not a symbol as such, but rather, a somewhat debased form of a curlicue, which we can see quite clearly on earlier decks, e.g. on the Noblet. (click the link to view, the image would not display properly).

Why would it be necessarily debased and not just transformed ? Just because there are curlicues on one deck, doesn't mean that another card maker didn't think it appropriate to replace it by something else.

If it is an alchemical symbol, it would the opposite of debasement.

[_R_]

Why would it be necessarily debased and not just transformed ? Just because there are curlicues on one deck, doesn't mean that another card maker didn't think it appropriate to replace it by something else.

If it is an alchemical symbol, it would the opposite of debasement.

True, but there are many examples of such a thing happening, where details become disfigured over time, either from woodblocks becoming worn or damaged (compare the earlier Conver printings with the Camoin bicentennial one) or from engravers carelessly copying things. Of course, one can choose to accord these details more or less importance, but in terms of the timeline of these modifications, some of them are quite clear.

Speaking of eggs, the infamous egg on the Camoin/Jodorowsky deck is one such example. There are others; people and items turning into umbrellas, broomsticks and torches from one printer to another, with little need for mystical speculation. That said, if a particular interpretation appeals to you, then why not?

[dodalisque]

Have you ever read anything ever about the odd symbols on the throne of the King of Swords ?

Another odd puzzle I've never noticed. I just see that his dagger is parallel to the arrow-shaped upward pointing diagonal on the design, and in relation to that his forearm seems to match the short double lines. The design could almost be drastically simplified portrait of the King of Swords himself, or a way of reinforcing our awareness of his aggressive body position. The dagger is a hidden weapon and the design looks like yet another hidden weapon behind the dagger. Three levels of protection - sword, dagger, abstract dagger. Could those double lines be an abstract representation of one of those protective hand-guards at the base of the blade on certain types of sword. The leaf-shapes on the diagonal perhaps match his epaulets. The backwards letter "C" - who knows! Does it match the body position of the King, the way he is twisted around in his seat? It also looks like the symbol for a bass clef in music. I have seen the suit of Swords associated with music, the mathematical precision of it. Not much of a guess, I'm afraid.

[dodalisque]

eggshell.

Oh no, have you been looking at that Jodorowsky-Camoin deck again, all those eggs!?

[_R_]

This issue raises an interesting point, namely, the distinction between the view that the Tarot (whichever one chooses to view as being the ‘original’ or ‘best’ naturally) is perfectly formed, every detail being intentional and meaningful, and a more critical, historically-minded approach. The former is that of Tchalaï (as far as the Grimaud deck is concerned), the latter that of more recent researchers. That said, there are many Tarot writers who do not accord much importance to the details, either in terms of symbolism or of interpretation.

To be sure, engravers or printers would add their own stamp, and not just their initials; there are all manner of “easter eggs” (eggs, again) hidden in the cards, for instance, corporative marks and other symbols of the printer’s art, an aspect which has been little dealt with in the literature.

Distinguishing what is deliberate and what is incidental (or even accidental) is not at all an easy matter either. Ultimately, this is a matter for everyone to decide for themselves; what is useful and informative, and what is not.

[Diana]

This issue raises an interesting point, namely, the distinction between the view that the Tarot (whichever one chooses to view as being the ‘original’ or ‘best’ naturally) is perfectly formed, every detail being intentional and meaningful, and a more critical, historically-minded approach. The former is that of Tchalaï (as far as the Grimaud deck is concerned), the latter that of more recent researchers. That said, there are many Tarot writers who do not accord much importance to the details, either in terms of symbolism or of interpretation.

Depends I suppose what makes us tick when it comes to the Tarot. Historians even go back to the Italian decks to find some purpose and meaning. Then there are those, amongst which I am, who are not very interested in making the connections between the Italian decks and the TdM as they consider the TdM to be a new tradition, inspired by those cards most of which weren't that amazing after all, apart from their being incredibly beautiful, and the artists must have enjoyed making them very much.

I think one is missing out most of the fun if one doesn't study the TdM through symbolism and other related matters. One can take the dry academic approach, but where's the colour and the dance and the music in that case. But a historian is maybe not looking for colour and dance and music and that's okay too. But I feel a bit sorry for them....

The Grimaud, apart from one or two details (one of which I regret) is perfect in my eyes in all its ways. I love that deck. I always go back to it.

[Diana]

Oh no, have you been looking at that Jodorowsky-Camoin deck again, all those eggs!?

It's very likely an olive branch the other symbol on the King of Swords' throne. Which we can assume I think is what is found on the Ace of Swords. Also a strange card. All the TdM cards are strange for us 21st century humans beings.

[dodalisque]

The Grimaud, apart from one or two details (one of which I regret) is perfect in my eyes in all its ways. I love that deck. I always go back to it.

Which one? Do any other decks correct that detail? Perhaps it was the first TdM you saw. Is that a bit like classical music when you fall in love with a certain piece of music and every other version of it never quite matches that initial experience?

It seems to be one of the teasing principles of tarot that for everyone there is always at least one thing annoyingly "wrong" with every version of the deck. Enrique Enriquez even says somewhere that the word "tarot" has two t's because its purpose is "to tease". The Grimaud, which is basically the Conver deck, isn't it?, is about as close to a "standard text" as there is. I kind of wish the Madenie had that status, since the facial expressions are more cheerful and there a few other lovely poetic touches, but the Grimaud does possess a unique quality of enigmatic restraint.

But I am more of a Type I guy rather than Type II like the Grimaud/Conver. So the Dodal is my favourite deck. By the time the Conver came along the card-makers seem more self-conscious about the symbolism of the deck whereas those earlier decks have a sort of rawness that seems more authentic to me somehow. It's a bit like comparing early acoustic Blues with B.B. King, or Early Music to Bach. More funky or something.

[dodalisque]

True, but there are many examples of such a thing happening, where details become disfigured over time, either from woodblocks becoming worn or damaged (compare the earlier Conver printings with the Camoin bicentennial one) or from engravers carelessly copying things.

Thank you for the curlicue idea. I have just been reading a book about medieval manuscripts and the mistakes made during the copying process. That period seems to have had a deep respect for copying, or at least attempting to faithfully reproduce, the wisdom of the past that we no longer have. Funny the way civilisation seems to build on mistakes and misinterpretations. "There is a crack in everything/That's how the light gets in" - Leonard Cohen "Credo".

[BreathingSince72]

This is not going to sound even remotely deep but when Dodalisque referenced the comparisons between the kings, the king of Deniers in particular, one thing stood it to me. He is not attired elaborately in all the formal regalia. He is not seated on a majestic throne, though he very likely owns one, and he is rather relaxed in his entire demeanor.

I suspect this is because he is quite comfortable in his station and wears it with ease. He does not require a pompous display because he is at ease. He knows who he is. He knows what he has. He knows what he has won and lost and the maturity of years allows him to just be himself. That's REAL wealth.

While we witness many wealthy in this world flaunt their gos like a badge of honor, don't those behaviors teaming you a bit make of a cold with their security blanks? That sports car and ever too young girl on the arm more reminiscent of a teddy bear helping an insecure individual to feel safer?

Our King meds none of that! His wealth lies within.

[Diana]

This is not going to sound even remotely deep but when Dodalisque referenced the comparisons between the kings, the king of Deniers in particular, one thing stood it to me. He is not attired elaborately in all the formal regalia. He is not seated on a majestic throne, though he very likely owns one, and he is rather relaxed in his entire demeanor.

I suspect this is because he is quite comfortable in his station and wears it with ease. He does not require a pompous display because he is at ease. He knows who he is. He knows what he has. He knows what he has won and lost and the maturity of years allows him to just be himself. That's REAL wealth.

While we witness many wealthy in this world flaunt their gos like a badge of honor, don't those behaviors teaming you a bit make of a cold with their security blanks? That sports car and ever too young girl on the arm more reminiscent of a teddy bear helping an insecure individual to feel safer?

Our King meds none of that! His wealth lies within.

Indeed, our King of Deniers is the least pretentious of the lot. And although appearances can be deceptive, I think he's the nicest of the four. He always reminds me a bit of José Mujica, the President of Uruguay from 2010 to 2015 who has been described as "the world's humblest head of state" due to his austere lifestyle and his donation of around 90 percent of his $12,000 monthly salary to charities that benefit poor people and small entrepreneurs. He drove around in an old barely held together car (I think a Volkswagen Beetle), and continued to live on his little farmstead instead of the presidential palace. He had been imprisoned for 12 years during the military dictatorship. I really liked José Mujica. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mujica

I really like how you stress that his wealth lies within. The artist didn't draw him with a denier in his tummy - that would have looked ridiculous. But the virtual Denier that he is maybe looking at does evoke this. It's in the realm of true wealth - spiritual wealth. The one that is invisible. The "I have meat to eat that ye know not of" kind of wealth.

Thanks also for speaking of dodalisque's posts. I seem to have missed them.