Cult of Tarot Forum

Hi,

I wondered if there are any people who associate the suit of swords with fire and the wands with air?

As a lot of readers started with the RWS Tarot it might be difficult to change the view on it, since the RWS wands have little flames and red colours, and almost every sword card is surrounded by some clouds.

I think it would be much easier to change the elements when using TdM. It's more historical and there are no hard interpretations, maybe the reason is it was never used for ceremonial magick..

I think there are compelling arguments for switching the correlations of fire and air. Fire is necessary to forge the metals used in making swords, so fire is a necessary component of the makeup of a sword. Swords can be used to lead a charge (think of mounted cavalry with their swords drawn as they ride forward into battle), so there is the driving aspect often associated with wands. And like fire, swords can be used for safety and protection or can be used for destruction. The arguments for keeping swords with air would be if you’re associating air with the intellect, swords are a nice metaphor for a sharp, cutting mind. And they slice through the air I suppose.

Batons begin as branches, and branches grow high in the air. As plants they have a direct relationship with air, literally creating the oxygen we need to breathe. Batons are often held aloft in the air, think marching band or ceremonial opening of parliament. Batons also swoosh through the air like a sword cuts through the air. Fire doesn’t seem like a great association for batons because fire destroys wood, so why would the suit be associated with the element that can destroy it?

I agree that the TdM makes it easier to switch the associations. The associations aren’t evident on the card imagery like they are in RWS decks.

Merrick wrote: ↑11 May 2020, 17:41 I think there are compelling arguments for switching the correlations of fire and air. Fire is necessary to forge the metals used in making swords, so fire is a necessary component of the makeup of a sword. Swords can be used to lead a charge (think of mounted cavalry with their swords drawn as they ride forward into battle), so there is the driving aspect often associated with wands. And like fire, swords can be used for safety and protection or can be used for destruction. The arguments for keeping swords with air would be if you’re associating air with the intellect, swords are a nice metaphor for a sharp, cutting mind. And they slice through the air I suppose.

Batons begin as branches, and branches grow high in the air. As plants they have a direct relationship with air, literally creating the oxygen we need to breathe. Batons are often held aloft in the air, think marching band or ceremonial opening of parliament. Batons also swoosh through the air like a sword cuts through the air. Fire doesn’t seem like a great association for batons because fire destroys wood, so why would the suit be associated with the element that can destroy it?

air is necessary for fire to exist, therefore the assertion fire is necessary for sword-making is moot, since their connection is mutual.
swords can be used to "lead a charge", but they can also sit there rusting - a process facilitated by air.
fire is like a living thing - it grows. air is inert in a sense - it is arid and needs other things to affect - as Hamlet said "there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

batons as branches - trees and the leaves on trees actually look like fire.
plants need air to exist, just as fire needs air and just as plants need water and earth. what we see here is an interdependence of the elements, and the way in which they are not as discreet and cut and dried as absolutist and/or taxonomists would have it.
fire destroys wood, but it is the basic thing we use to make fires; the 2 are hand in glove. fire destroys everything, after all. arguably, air and fire both destroy themselves if given full reign - this in part is why they are male and represented in the phallic rod and blade: without the female, the race would end.
in the end, the elemental allocation for the suits is allegorical, not literal. the real "fire" the element fire in the tarot alludes to is life itself - the inner spark, which may be the spirit or may be the atom.


.

No more than the issue of reversed cards, there is no consensus on the issue of elemental attributions, no more than there is for astrological or cabalistic correspondences.

The first question to ask is: “Why?” What end might it serve, in either the study of the Tarot as a system in its own right, or in a divinatory application, to ask such a question?

Following the satisfactory answer of these questions, we may then consider that various authors, presumably with their own logic, have proposed differing sets of attributions. In other words, since the Tarot in its earliest forms did not come with a definitive booklet, nor a full-fledged commentary, like the Book of Changes, we will have to make up our own minds as to the functionality of this concept, and then go about investigating these connections for ourselves. (Of course, if one prefers to adopt a prefabricated system wholesale, that is one's prerogative, it goes without saying.)

C.S. Lewis’ little book, “The Discarded Image” is essential reading in this regard, as it gives a concise overview of ancient/medieval cosmology, and the nature of the elements, among other things.

That aside, I will note that at least one author has pointed out that since there are in fact five suits of cards, should we not be looking for a "fifth element"? He conveniently finds this set of five in the traditional Chinese concept of the Five Phases (rather than 'elements'), justified to a certain degree on the basis that since cards are of Chinese origin, a correlation with a Chinese system is preferable...

Your mileage may vary, as they say.

_R_ wrote: ↑12 May 2020, 04:37 That aside, I will note that at least one author has pointed out that since there are in fact five suits of cards, should we not be looking for a "fifth element"? He conveniently finds this set of five in the traditional Chinese concept of the Five Phases (rather than 'elements'), justified to a certain degree on the basis that since cards are of Chinese origin, a correlation with a Chinese system is preferable...

I've been languidly mulling this over for some time. Intuitively, aether seems a good fit for a fifth element. This would be especially true if the trumps could be convincingly linked to the various planets, constellations and other such, um, 'entities.' What practical application this would have, I don't know. Then again, the trumps have, for a long time now, struck me as reading rather nicely as platonic archetypes. This approach would however put them out of the aesthetic realm, beyond the play of the elements.... if one follows platonic thinking, that is (or at least my understanding of it).

If anyone's interested, here's a wonderfully detailed exposition on the elements and their classical significance by John Opsopaus:
http://opsopaus.com/OM/BA/AGEDE/Intro.html

Some pagan and Wiccan schools assign fire to swords/athame and air to wands. This is reflected in Tarot decks like the Witches (by Reed) and the Modern Spellcasters.

I'm not sure about only switching the elements of fire and air. How about switching the elements around all together? I've struggled with this for a while. The playing card suits don't line up with TdM at all and I've played around with the attempt several times. (Some might think that I'm crazy to try it, but here we are...)

With hearts we red and rounded edges, this represents activity and femininity ... water or cups
With spades we have black and points, this represents passivity and masculinity ... air or swords
With clubs we have black and rounded edges, this represents passivity and femininity ... earth or pentacles
With diamonds we have red and points, this represents activity and masculinity ... fire or wands

I can beat myself over the head (and others) with this until I'm blue in the face but logic doesn't seem to matter to those who seem to let tradition or habit take control. I understand that. But I can't shake the above from my head. The playing card suits are actually encoded. Does this translate well into TdM? Not easily at all! It doesn't even figure into my own readings all the time! But it doesn't prevent me from trying!

I'm not the only one to use this method. Paul Huson is one another (at least). I used to have his book. Here is a blog author with an interesting entry: https://sentinelonthecouncil.wordpress. ... or-arcana/
At least I'm not alone

devin wrote: ↑14 May 2020, 16:18

_R_ wrote: ↑12 May 2020, 04:37 That aside, I will note that at least one author has pointed out that since there are in fact five suits of cards, should we not be looking for a "fifth element"?

I've been languidly mulling this over for some time. Intuitively, aether seems a good fit for a fifth element.

If anyone's interested, here's a wonderfully detailed exposition on the elements and their classical significance by John Opsopaus:
http://opsopaus.com/OM/BA/AGEDE/Intro.html

The first TdM card begins with the 4 raw elements (two in the hands of the Bateleur + 2 on the table). At the end of the tarot, in card 21, we have the 4 revealed symbols or the 4 gospels, and in the center a character who represents the quintessence, the union of the 4 elements, the crossing of the mirror...