Overview
In reality, the historic record indicates that Tarot was invented in northern Italy between approximately 1420 and 1440, and little evidence supports the notion that designers created decks based on systematic correspondences or that Taroists employed such correspondences during Tarot’s first three centuries. Nevertheless, beginning in the 18th century and to this day, a significant number of Tarotists, including designers of decks, have employed them and have reported that they are eminently useful, either revealing or adding a rich and meaningful dimension to the cards. Therefore, the study and comparison of correspondences are both important and relevant to the practice and history of the esoteric Tarot.The author was motivated to research and publish the work you are reading because many other presentations concerning correspondences, which he studied, were seriously flawed. For example, they sometimes included numerous, significant errors, presented findings in a misleading manner, reflected serious misconceptions, were undocumented, and/or failed to address the Minor Arcana. Additionally, presentations often summarized few systems; in fact, they often summarized only one, specifically that of the Golden Dawn. As a result, some authors have given readers the impression that this system is the historically correct or only system. In reality, holding up any system as the only system is absurd; the document which you are reading summarizes 27 sets of correspondences. Equally important, holding up any system as the historically correct one is highly questionable. Again, little evidences exists to suggest anyone used Tarot correspondences during Tarot’s first three centuries.Several reasons may have contributed to these deficiencies. First, many authors have perpetuated errors because they apparently depended on unreliable, second-hand sources. Copying someone else’s summary is much easier than researching and writing your own. Second, many authors and designers of decks, especially in the English-speaking world, have been deeply committed to the Golden Dawn system and promote only these correspondences. Third, sometimes the creators of systems have presented them ambiguously, or published multiple conflicting systems. Later authors, perhaps in an effort to avoid ambiguity, sometimes over-simplify a system upon summarizing it. For example, rather than report that a given Tarotist indicated that Strength might correspond to Mars or the Sun, they will select only one of these planets for their summary. Similarly, some authors, perhaps in an effort to avoid conflict, fail to report that a major Tarotist wrote that Strength corresponds to Mars in one book, only to write that it corresponds to the Sun in another book. Instead, they specify only one planet in their summary. Worse, they sometimes fail to identify the book which they referenced.The author of the presentation you are reading, however, has striven to avoid these and similar deficiencies. To help ensure accurate data, he references primary sources only. For example, to research Etteilla’s correspondences he read Etteilla–not an author who claims Etteilla wrote such-and-such. To help ensure breadth of coverage, he presents a wide variety of systems; some depend from the Golden Dawn tradition, but many clearly do not. When a Tarotist only implies a correspondence, he notes this in the summary. When a Tarotist is ambiguous, he likewise notes this and makes a good faith effort to summarize accurately the author’s ideas. However, in highly ambiguous cases, reasonable Tarotists might interpret the same data differently. Finally, if the author is aware that a leading Tarotist presented multiple noteworthy systems which conflicted with each other significantly, he summarizes each individually.To display the summary of any system go to the Index of Summaries and Comparisons and click on the appropriate blue bullet. Summaries appear in a wide tabular format; for best results, view them in a wide window and use your scroll bars to navigate. You may also display four selected systems as one table by clicking on the final item of the index. For each system, the index shows its source and year of publication. However, for each source identified as a manuscript, it shows the year it was written; such works were initially privately distributed. It also characterizes each system, using the following descriptors.
| |||
| • | Aleph = Magician. A system that, explicitly or implicitly, assigns the Hebrew letter Aleph to the Magician (Mountebank). | ||
| |||
| • | Golden Dawn. A system that conforms to a significant degree to the fully developed Golden Dawn system (titled Golden Dawn 2), which assigns Aleph to the Fool. | ||
| |||
| • | Other. Any system that fails to meet the criteria for the other two descriptors. |
When you view a summary, you first see in the top row data for the traditional Tarot de Marseilles, specifically the number and title for each Major Arcanum, which are for comparison purposes. Immediately beneath, the data for the selected system appears. If the source numbers a Major Arcanum differently compared to the Tarot de Marseille, the number appears in bold to alert the reader. Importantly, if a table fails to show correspondences for the Hebrew alphabet as a whole, Zodiacal signs, planets, Cabalistic sephiroth, or Elements, the selected system lacks them.Sources have stated all correspondences explicitly and systematically, except those which appear in red, which, in the judgment of the author of these summaries, are implied only. In addition, in the judgment of the author, all correspondences are of a primary nature, except those few which appear in blue, which are of a secondary, or less important, nature.This is a draft document. The author welcomes your corrections, comments, and questions. Although he has made every reasonable effort to present data accurately and completely, occasionally errors or omissions may exist. If you detect any, please notify him. In a future edition of this work, he will introduce explanatory notes, expand the introduction, and add new material, to better meet readers’ needs. Therefore, if you have any suggestions for improvement, he is eager to hear from you. You may contact the author, James W. Revak, by e-mail. If you are a member of the TarotL discussion group, and you feel that your corrections, comments, or questions are appropriate to that forum, you may post a message there; the author participates in TarotL daily.
