Top critical review
5 people found this helpful
A good idea that falls apart on closer examination
on 3 August 2014
First of all I would like to say that I do believe this is a "Genuine" book that has been written by somebody who really believes the subject material as opposed to someone trying to make a quick buck. But equally in joining Numerology with Tarot the Writer (in this publication at least) evidently hasn't thought things through very well. A big warning sign is that and based the book on Tarot Myth and not Tarot Fact, the writer states "As far as we know Tarot has always been used as a tool for divination", but of course this is completely untrue. Tarot Cards were invented, and used for, games of Gambling and were so for over Three Centuries before they morphed into the "Occult" tool we know today. If this book had been written in the 19th Century then the writer could be forgiven for thinking this but certainly not in 1995.
In simple terms what you will find in these pages is something like this - say for example the cards that are Numbered "Nine", 5 + 4 = 9 so the Writer goes into great detail about the meanings of Five and Four in Numerology thus revealing the meaning of the card. All well and good but what about 7 + 2 - that equals Nine too. Or what about 3 + 6? Or 8 + 1? You see the problem here? Why has the author settled on this particular equation while ignoring the others?
Another basic fallacy that the Writer has made is the number of the cards in History. They make a great deal about the earliest Fourteenth Century origin of Tarot Cards, "The Classic Tarot" as the author calls it, and why the number was set at 78 cards - but of course it WASN'T set at 78 cards at all, this was a development with late Eighteenth Century Occultists who were debunked as hoaxers with the discovery of the Rosetta Stone. The Cary Yale certainly wasn't 78 cards. The Minchiate Certainly isn't 78 cards. The Visconti Sforza had had the "Missing" cards reproduced in the 1970's but the general consensus among experts is that they never existed anyway. How the author has missed such a basic fact as this is truly baffling.
Nevertheless, in conclusion I would say that there is some value here as alternative interpretations to think about but there are equally so many holes in the Writers theory that discretion needs to be employed when using this method.