| |
The Court Cards of the Tarot as Personalities
In card games, there is an inherent simplicity to court
cards: they are basically the ‘rulers’ of each
suit, with a very clear and determined hierarchy. Of course,
having said this, we are then faced with peculiar variations
in terms of specific games, where Aces or Jacks ‘trump’ Kings
and Queens, or where the Jack of one suit is deemed superior
to any court from any other suit. In the game of
tarot, there is also a clarity about court hierarchy: Pages
precede Knights, who precede Queens, who precede Kings.
At one level, there is much that can be gained from reflecting
on this order of ‘authority’ or, perhaps more
appropriately, reflecting on the different types of
authority, power or role each plays, without ranking their
respective attributes in an hierarchically determined manner.
In that sense, the Page’s role is different,
but not inferior, to the King’s or Queen’s.
There is, especially on the continent of Europe, a long
tradition of assigning court cards names. For example,
A specific King may be related or called ‘King David’ (couldn’t
resist this example, for some unknown reason).
With these assignments, it becomes less so the role the
linked individual plays than the persona he or
she suggests given lore and legend. Modern equivalents
would be by assigning specific cards to such individuals
as Mother Theresa, Marilyn Monroe, Gandhi, Martin Luther
King, Adolf Hitler, Ayatollah Khomeini, Marie Curie, or
Albert Einstein.
These names conjure, for most of us, not individuals
that have full human foibles and complexes, but rather
reflect specific persona or types. Of course,
I could have selected quite different ones, and even the
above list will be seen from different perspectives depending
on our personal knowledge of their achievements and engagements,
and our own involvement in such areas of life as entertainment,
politics, and religion.
One could easily come up with quite distinct groups of
people who reflect something more of the sword, or coins,
of the cup, or of batons. Without going into the various correlations
made for these four suits, I would suggest that, looking
at the above list of people, each of us, perhaps in different
ways, could begin to allocate whether they are page, knight,
queen or king of something more batons-like, cup-like,
coin-like or sword-like.
This can be further reflected on and characteristics
removed from these individuals. For example, some individuals
seem to suggest engagement with others in a very extroverted
and grandiose manner, others in a more quiet and individual-focussed
style. Some tend to respond in a way that suggests a clarity
of thought, others with a warmth of heart. Some seem to
be more interested in how to do things and see possibilities,
others in getting the task completed and seeing what is
already achieved.
Part of the complexity of human individuality is of course
that we each have all of these characteristics
that manifest in various situations. Still, we also have
styles and characteristics that tend to predominate, or
at least that our peers tend to mainly see. For example,
a person who may have a depth of feeling and great heart
sensitivity may nonetheless be considered relatively hard
and cold by those who do not know him or her well.
In terms of the court cards of the Tarot, I am not at
this time concerned with the manner in which we tend to
reflect personality, or types of engagement, but
rather on how the court cards themselves may suggest traits
or characteristics of type persona.
The MBTI
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the work Myers-Briggs
did some decades earlier had a popular resurgence that
seems to have only grown since. Though I personally find
the way in which it has been adopted in certain sectors
deplorable, it would equally do an injustice to dismiss
its merits.
During this period of the late 1980s, I worked intensely
on trying to understand the basis for the MBTI.
It is also during that time that I developed a possible
correlation between it and the court cards. In the early
90s, I included much of this work in my various Tarot courses,
and one of my then students, who was also later involved
in some of the organisation of the mid-1990s Tarot Conference
in Melbourne, also brought it there for sharing purposes
as a one page handout.
Since then, and independently, others, including Mary
Greer, have also presented ways in which the Court Cards
and the MBTI may be correlated.
What follows is therefore only one of several
ways in which appropriate correlations may be made. How
the correlations are made in part depends on what is considered
central or foundational with the MBTI, and how each court
card is seen. What is common is that the court
cards can be seen to reflect persona and ways
of approaching a problem or situation.
Correlations
Myers-Briggs developed a personality inventory based
on the four Jungian functions and life orientations. In
terms of the court cards of the Tarot, what concerns us
is not necessarily knowing one’s own type, but rather
how the sixteen MBTI personality types reflect in the sixteen
court cards.
Jung describes four functions in Psychological
Types. These are Thinking, Intuition,
Feeling, and Sensing. Two of these are the functions
we use when deciding or assessing, or, as Jung termed
it, judging; and two others are used in information
gathering, or the ways in which we see situations:
in other words, our perceptive functions.
Note that we all use these four functions. Some, however,
will be more developed than others, in that we will
prefer to use one of our perceptive functions when
looking at a situation, and prefer to use one of our
judging functions when making a decision, or judging
a situation.
Graphically, we can illustrate those two dimensions as
horizontal and vertical arms:
Perception
The two perceptive functions are Sensing and Intuition.
On this model, Intuition is placed at Fire, and Sensing
at Earth.
Those of us that prefer to use our sensing function will
like to know what the facts of a situation are, those that
prefer to use their intuitive function will prefer to see
what the possibilities in a situation are. In his introduction,
Frager presents these two in the following excellent abbreviated
form:
[…] sensation types tend to value only
those who demonstrate mastery over facts and details. Intuitives
think highly of others who can bring complex information
into a new whole, and they tend to devalue sensation types
as people who “can’t see the forest for the
trees.”
In past tarot courses, participants often took the MBTI
as part of understanding various elements of human personality.
What I have found interesting, but perhaps expected, is
that over 80% were intuitives, and of those that are sensing,
their preferred judging function is feeling. People interested
in such topics as Tarot with Sensing as their perceptive
preference will be more likely to prefer to use one established
deck, in which every detail will be interpreted in a reasonably
clear-cut fashion, whereas those with Intuition as their
perceptive preference will be more likely to possess at
least four vastly different decks, and ‘see’ in
each card elements that are omitted and that ‘ought’ to
be added.
As parents, Sensing people will be more likely to have
functionally oriented toys for their children, whereas
Intuitive types will be more likely to have toys that allow
their utility to be adaptable to the imaginative uses one
puts them to. For example, to a Sensing type, a potty will
be used as a container for specific items. To an Intuitive
type, it may serve as a container, or a hat, or a stool.
The Sensing parent may well say to the child ‘potties
don’t go on the head!’, as opposed to the intuitive
parent who may exclaim ‘What a hat!’ (and hope
it was clean!).
In a reading, a sensing oriented card may tell the reader
that what needs to be focussed on are the facts of the
situation: what is really there rather than what one would
like to be there. The appropriate focus might be what one
has at one’s disposal, rather than how to use the
things one has. Conversely, an intuitive oriented card
may point out that one ought to focus on the opportunities
or possibilities in the situation at hand, rather than
focus on what is concretely there here and now.
Judging
The two judging functions are Thinking and Feeling. On
our model, Thinking is placed at Air, and Sensing at Water.
Those of us who prefer to use our thinking function will
like to analyse and deduce a conclusion given a situation,
whereas those who prefer to use their feeling function
will be guided by ideals and values. In his introduction,
Frager presents these two in the following abbreviated
form:
Feeling types respond to those who have a strong
sense of human values and high ideals. Thinking types respect
others who are clear, logical, and “smart”,
and are likely to put down feeling types as nice but not
very bright.
A quick check to see one’s preference is to notice
the difference each type places on the meaning of ‘what
is “right” or “correct”’.
The Thinking type is likely to understand these words in
terms of whether the item or decision in question follows
logically from other given previously established or agreed
upon point, whereas the Feeling type will view these terms
in their ethical sense. In their extremes, the Thinking
type will want the reasons as to why killing is wrong,
whereas the Feeling type will think such reasoning is post
hoc.
To the Thinker, a decision will be right or correct if
it logically follows from accepted premises, irrespective
of its moral significance. To the Feeler, it will be the
converse, in that a decision will be right or correct if
it is the ‘morally’ or socially good thing
to do, irrespective of its logical status with respect
to the surrounding issues. To the Feeler, the intrinsic
worth of the concerned people is what is deemed or special
import, as opposed to the Thinker, for whom the special
import are the relevant issues.
As parents, Thinking types will be more likely to encourage
tasks or activities which can be sequentially completed,
or for which a method can be worked out or demonstrated,
whereas Feeling types will be more likely to encourage
morally enhancing activities or stories. In terms of Aesop’s
fables, the Thinking type would probably prefer the Hare
and the Tortoise, for the moral can be logically explained,
whereas the Feeling type may very well prefer the Mouse
and the Lion.
In a reading, a thinking oriented card may tell the reader
that what needs to be done is an analysis of the situation
leading to a decision. The appropriate focus might be results
are likely to occur under the current situation. Conversely,
a feeling oriented card may point out that one ought to
focus on is the morally correct decision, irrespective
of the consequences: one’s principles ought not be
compromised.
Orientation
The two orientations are inwards, referred to as Introversion,
and outwards, referred to as Extraversion. These indicate
where one’s energy is primarily directed, and where
one feels more comfortable.
In a reading, and Introverted card may indicate that
a search within oneself has to be made in order or perceive
or judge the situation, whereas an extroverted card may
indicate that the advice of another, or at least discussion
with another, is highly favourable.
Correlations
Before correlating, let us briefly see how these three
dimensions of personality lead to sixteen different types.
Of each pair of opposites, one will be preferred over the
other. For example, a sensing person will, whenever possible,
opt to use their sensing over their intuitive function.
Each one of us has such a preference between each extreme.
But a Sensing type may be either of the Thinking or Feeling
type, and either Introverted or Extroverted. Additionally,
of one’s two preferred functions (of which one is
the perceptive and the other the judging function), one
will have a preference towards either one’s judging
or perceptive function. The possibilities are thus:
It now remains to correlate all the possibilities with
the cards. Since we have already linked the four functions
with the elements, and the elements are often linked to
the suits, let us leave these for now and concentrate on
other factors, ie, linking with the individual court cards
Introversion, Extroversion, Judging, and Perception.
Of the four courts, Judging is the prerogative of the
Kings and Queens, leaving Perception to the Knights and
Pages. Traditionally, Introversion is more closely aligned
to feminine characteristics, and extroversion with masculine
ones. In grid form, this then gives us:
Jean-Michel David
|
|
