Nigel Jackson Tarot Review
by Yvonne Rathbone
©2003
Deck Reviews
Wheel
Of Change
PoMo
Tarot
Halloween Tarot
Nigel Jackson Tarot
I'm about to say a bunch of things that I don't like about Nigel Jackson's Tarot, so let me first state that I do like the deck itself a lot. My problems are not with the deck itself or the system that underlies it, but with the creator's historical claims and the unevenness with which he applies his system to the deck.
Jackson's
Wacky Theories
For
Jackson, the symbolism behind the Tarot is rooted in the ancient
mystery schools of classical civilization. The trumps are interpretations
of the concepts of Arithmancy that was taught by the Orphic,
Hermetic and Pythagorean schools, finally rendered in card format
in during the Renaissance. Jackson knows full well we have no
record of Tarot Trumps before the 15th century so he makes a
distinction between the format of the Tarot card and the ideas
that underpin the symbolism.
He sets a firm date for the origin of the ideas at 530 b.c.e. and links this origin with Pythagoras, a Greek mystic who saw pure number as the ultimate expression of God. But Jackson doesn't rest with Pythagoras. He implicates just about everybody in the ancient world with contributing directly to the formation of the Trump images.
Chapter One of the accompanying book is packed with a brief summary of the various streams of thought Jackson uses to inform his deck. To those mentioned above, he adds Middle Eastern Gnostic religion and the cult of Mithras along with the teachings of Zoroaster, Hermes Trismegistus, Apollonius and Plotinus. To round things out he includes the Hellenized Egyptian, Chaldean and Persian mystery religions and the Cathars. It's quite a mix and describes a conspiracy that far outmatches the one Paul Foster Case put forward 80 years ago.
To explain the deep fascination the tarot has engendered since Gebelin, Jackson constructs an elaborate theory of how Pythagorean number theory was kept alive down through the ages until finally recorded in Tarot format by the Printmaker Guilds of the 15th century (who were in on things). It's a wonderful story that ties up everything very neatly, but while it's founded on better data than the French Occultists had, it's still just as unproven.
He makes a classic mistake of ascribing to ancient people a synthesizing point of view that really exists in the modern theorist. The people of these various school's lived centuries apart at a time when written texts were rare. Most likely, members of each group would see themselves as highly distinct from each other, not as fellow carriers of the same wisdom. It is the modern historian who has access to all the documents and is outside of the events who can bring together what were originally different efforts to understand the sacred. It is only from the modern perspective that these diverse systems may be compared and contrasted and their connections apprehended.
Jackson follows many tarot theorists before him in moving the role of synthesizer away from himself and onto historical characters in an attempt to legitimize his system. A modern design for the Tarot lacks as much cache today as it did in Levi's time, but such a complex system could only be developed in hindsight and the collapsed time perspective of the modern historian.
Ultimately however, it doesn't really matter to me that Jackson believes his own story. His system can very well stand on its own and be judged for what it is without the fabulous origin story. The deck itself, being a collection of images, can certainly be used without reference to any ancient civilization.
Jackson's
Actual System
Given
my rejection of Jackson's historical claims, I find that I like
his system. I don't find it as "flawless" as he claims,
nor do I find it as regularly applied as one might expect from
such an apparently perfect match. But the system does work and
adds to my overall understanding of the cards as long as I disregard
the creator's claims of origin.
The deck is structured very traditionally. The suits are Swords, Cups, Staves (for Wands) and Coins. The elemental attribution is older, Fire for Swords and Air for Staves. The titles of the Major Arcana are mostly the same as Waite-Smith, except it uses the older 8-Justice/11 Fortitude order. The adherence to a tradition older than Waite however is a little jarring in that this deck is image-wise, a Waite-Smith clone.
Because the author draws on so many different traditions, he ascribes to each Major Arcana a set of deity forms. The Empress is the Rose-Queen, Dame Venus, Dame Nature, Habondia, Vesta, Latonia and the Three Graces. The Sun is The Heavenly Master, Apollo-Sol, Hypereon, and Helios-Mithras the Celestial King of the Stars. These kinds of lists don't work for me if I am to assume the names listed are really all the same being. So instead, I think of them as a family of symbols all of which may be entertained in the mind to develop the card's composite meaning. When I make this jump, I find Jackson's attributions do help me to develop my understanding of the cards.
Jackson makes several claims of a Pythagorean origin for Tarot symbolism, but spends very little space on describing Pythagorean number theory. We are briefly told that each number from 1 to 10 was considered, well, very important to the followers of Pythagoras. After reading the book a couple of times, I still don't have a picture of how the Pyathagoreans thought of their numbers. Were they gods? Perfect forms? Archetypes? No idea.
Jackson also
uses Astrological Correspondences, although these are different
from older versions. Jackson uses nineteen specific planet sign
combinations, namely all of the rulerships and exaltations. Every
planet rules at least one sign and is exalted (raised to its
highest expression) in another. He doesn't use the outermost
planets of modern astrology but limits himself to the planets
used by the ancients. In this system there are 19 different rulership
and exaltation relationships. This leaves four Major Arcana left
over to be ruled by elements.
All in all, however, I found it hard to relate Jackson's interpretations of the cards back to these listed sources. There are of course some similarities. The Ogdoad (8) is concerned with Justice. The Tetrad (4) with the solidification of matter. Etc. But these Pythagorean meanings coupled with the Astrological correspondences do not seem to provide the entire meaning given by the author.
In what seems to me a bit of a cop out, Jackson states that meanings for the Minor Arcana seem "likely to have derived from the same ancient Pythagorean teachings...which underlie the Greater Arcana," and then provides meanings for the Minor Arcana that stem entirely from continental cartomancy. These cartomantic meanings have very little relationship to the Pythagorean sacred numbers. For instance, the Hexad (6) is called the number of wedlock, but when we turn to the 6 of swords, we find the Waite-Smith classic "travel over water" meaning. None of the minor sixes mention anything about marriage.
The Deck
Itself
Apart
from all the text is the deck itself. A bundle of cards and images
making no ludicrous claims on their own and ultimately having
only as much to do with Pythagoras as the reader wants. It is
the deck itself that I really like.
As noted above, the structure is traditional, owing more to Marseilles than Waite-Smith. The style of artwork is charming and sweet. The landscapes look like illustrations for fairy tales. But the expressions of the faces are rendered rather stoically, creating an overall mood of stillness.
Most of the images relate to Waite-Smith, but some are different. The 10 of Swords shows a ruined city. The 9 of Staves (Wands) shows a castle. The 9 of Cups shows a Phoenix flying under a rainbow. (This is one of my favorite cards in the deck.) But while some of the images are different the meanings behind them are almost always similar.
There are also some details I particularly like. In Fortitude, the lion licks the maiden's hand with apparent pleasure. I also like the figures of a lot of the characters. The women have hips! The landscapes convey a sweet innocence.
The Nigel Jackson deck is a fine one. The artwork is pleasant, unless you have an aversion to heart shaped faces, and the meanings of the cards are readily apparent. The author gives a good tale about origins that can be tossed aside without rendering the deck unusable. I'd recommend that people who are considering it base their judgment on how they respond to the artwork since the application of Pythagorean number theory is not as flawless as the creator would like to believe.