What do you think?
Rate this book
Il codice dei tarocchi
"Il codice dei tarocchi" propone una visione totalmente nuova che illumina il vero senso di queste straordinarie figure che celano, sotto un'apparente semplicità fatta di disegni, colori e qualche scritta, il più incredibile dei segreti: sono un'intelligenza superiore che comunica con l'essere umano, senza intermediari, tramite un preciso linguaggio occultato sotto forma di simboli. Le "chiavi" di decodifica sono state intenzionalmente nascoste e custodite nel corso dei secoli, per evitarne l'alterazione e l'accusa di eresia. Per comprenderle è indispensabile conoscere l'esistenza di una "struttura cifrata" di codici e leggi che consente di stabilire la connessione con questa saggezza senza tempo. Leggere i tarocchi, quindi, significa dare voce a questo millenario alfabeto che si manifesta mediante la formulazione di "vere e proprie frasi", simili in tutto e per tutto a quelle della scrittura propriamente intesa.
420 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 1, 2013
1 person is currently reading
11 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 20, 2019
I hesitate to leave a bad review. I am cognisant that a bad review can harm an author, undermine their strenuous efforts to fulfil the dream of publication, and damage a reputation, but I have just finished this book and I am staggered. So much so that I need to search the thesaurus for a range of negative superlatives by which I might convey how downright awful this book was. It was so bad, so astonishingly terrible that not only would I unhesitatingly place it as the worst book on Tarot I have ever read, but I would - with little reservation - accord it the same dubious honour among all books I have ever read.
Why?
I read the book in English. It is clear that the book is a translation. It may be a fairly accurate translation, but in terms of the quality of English one reads within, it reads poorly. Were that the only problem, I could see past it. The translation is not the issue. It makes the book a little unpleasant to read, but nothing more, and I imagine that the source material did not aid the translator. So, for translation, while I cannot state that this book flows as a well edited book might be expected to, it is acceptable.
In terms of the reasoning employed throughout, however, I cannot impress upon you enough how dire this was.
The writer, founder of the Academy of the Tarot (who publish the book), has two principal arguments.
One is that the authentic Tarot is that of Marseilles, most specifically that of Nicholas Conver, from 1760, and that this derives from a code derived from Ancient Egypt, and brought to Europe by a monk one of the Cenobites, a desert father. This monk, John Cassian, ensured the survival of the code of the Tarot, which combines elements of the cult of Isis, and Horus, Christianity and Freemasonry. The code is evident, if you look hard enough, and clearly contains a deep wisdom which can serve as a path to illumination. In specifying that this (Conver) Tarot is the authentic one, he has to argue that the older Tarocchi of Milan, Paris, et al, are derivatives. Conver modelled an older Tarot which pre-dates these others, but has not survived to this day. All other Tarot decks, even those which predate Conver, are corruptions, of the one true tarot.
The second argument revolves around the fallacy of divination, and takes square aim at the Esoteric Tarot decks, in particular Rider Waite Smith (1910) and associated decks,for their evident misinterpretation of the Tarot.
He makes extensive use of long-winded arguments to justify his position. So much so, that the great majority of the book, perhaps all but 25 pages, is taken up with arguments supporting his contention that Conver’s deck descends directly from the secret code brought from Egypt by Cassian. The evidence he brings is of the sort that requires a suspension of rational thought, to my mind. Such that, if you accept the premise, and start looking at the cards from that perspective, and try really, really hard, you might begin to see evidence that confirms your preconceptions and bias.
At times, this feels desperate - look, there is a torch in the card of the Papesse, sure you have to turn her upside down and realise that the red lining of the folds of her robe represent a torch, but anyway, she clearly represents Isis, as Isis is typically represented with a torch.
Or the staff of the Fool (who is actually a dead soul on a journey (via Arcana XV through XX) by boat along a river, to the chamber of justice presided over by Osiris) is inclined at thirty degrees. This clearly indicates - time, as 360/30 = 12 the number of calendar months, an hours in the day, signs of the zodiac etc. Additionally, we learn later, the staff is in two pieces, which differ in direction by three degrees, the three plus the thirty seen before indicate the thirty three degrees of masonry. The fact that Hiram (who built the Temple of Solomon, and is associated with Freemasonry) is mentioned in a correspondence between Cassian and the Pope of the time, with reference to the construction of a metaphorical Temple of believers, is enough to demonstrate conclusively that Freemasonry is entwined with the encoded wisdom of the Tarot. Also, this helps establish the fact that Freemasonry is an ancient tradition that precedes all evidence of its own existence by some two thousand years.
Let’s say that I could see past the unnecessary waffle, the convoluted, spurious and inaccurate arguments, laden with scholarly references that don’t prove anything pertinent to his arguments, let’s imagine this scenario, and move on to the actual decoding process. For, were the code itself to prove earth-shattering, deep, and instructive, perhaps, from the hundreds of pages you are asked to read through, you might feel that you got at least something useful from it. HEre to you would be disappointed.
Not only would you struggle to find forty pages with anything more than a handful of examples of the code , grammar and syntax of this miraculous method, neither would every card be explained to you. Nor would you ever have any idea of what any of the “Minor Arcana” mean, although he argues for a code across 78 cards.
In essence the secret lies in regarding the cards as a child would, and looking for commonalities, contradictions, and occasional geometric indications without seeking to overinterpret the significance of symbols. That is, a book seen in the card of La Papesse, might indicate...books, reading, study.
Having disparaged the ‘divination’ of other schools of thought, he then concedes that divination has some value, and makes a reasonable point that a reading is a snapshot of the present, and an opportunity to comprehend past influences, as well as stimulate ideas as to what future directions might be worth considering. In essence, he seems to agree with a whole range of other Tarot authors, few of whom would ever permit their readership to state that anything is written in stone.
Perhaps, he has not read many of them, but seen only that which confirms the preconceptions brought to his studies.
He makes reference to Jung, while missing the point of Jung’s arguments of Archetypes entirely. He explains the ‘science’ of Tarot, insisting that his contentions are scientifically demonstrable, until the point that his argument (already laboured, convoluted and self-contradictory) runs out of steam, and he essentially shrugs, and says, beyond a certain point we cannot know, as in science, the scientists can’t explain quantum physics, and so with the science of Tarot, we can’t explain the reasons either - just like the scientists!
No, taking all of that, were there to be a clearly explicated method, I might be inclined to advise the reader to wade through the nonsense, in the hope of finding something useful. Instead, we arrrive at the conclusion to read,
“In order to avoid doubts...we wish to address those who expect to obtain, from the sole reading of a book on the Tarot, a rapid and schematic possibility of competence allowing a practical and, above all, immediate use of its cards...from our writings it should appear clear that the Tarot is a custodian of a rich and complex Science, which cannot be completely explored in a summary and precipitous manner...The knowledge contained in the Tarot, moreover must be transmitted orally...the entire subject could not be illustrated in one sole writing...
Furthermore, in order to reduce the difficulty...we have limited research to certain basic mechanisms, postponing the completion of the entire system to later works. You will have noticed that...there has been no close examination of the single Arcana neither the 22 Major nor the 56 Minor...[this is because] a deeper analysis requires the knowledge of further principles not yet described here....”
And on, and on, All to say. Sorry,I have only given you a hint of what the codes, grammar and syntax of this miraculous language are. More to come, meanwhile you can always come and study with me at the Academy of Tarot...
Really? Hundreds of pages of argument that barely makes sense, based upon incredibly fatuous conceptions, with the most tenuous proofs I have ever seen offered for anything, a smattering of instruction, justified with “maybe it is undesirable even to write this stuff down, but I will do it anyway, at some future point. Nevertheless, despite this being a code which is accessible to all, it can only really be learned by a slow, ordered process of initiation.
Notes to my review.
I have read more than a hundred other books on Tarot, some good, some bad, some extraordinarily insightful.
I have read Jung, the works of Joseph Campbell, and quite a range of other books, including books on sciences, psychology, anthropology and so on (I estimate some ten thousand in total, to date.) I say this to counter any potential argument from the author, or anyone emotionally invested in this work, that might wish to suggest that I don’t know what I am talking about.
I’m pretty capable of juggling multiple themes within an argument, and following them to a carefully woven conclusion, the author did not lose me in complexity, I would argue that the author may have got lost in the complexity of what he attempted, in the process of which nearly all sense was lost.
I would call it gibberish, but that would be to insult Al-Gibr, whose mathematics was indeed above the conception of many who encountered it, but did not lack for internal logic, or demonstrable validity for all the comprehension issues that Algebra presents the non-mathematically inclined with.
Why?
I read the book in English. It is clear that the book is a translation. It may be a fairly accurate translation, but in terms of the quality of English one reads within, it reads poorly. Were that the only problem, I could see past it. The translation is not the issue. It makes the book a little unpleasant to read, but nothing more, and I imagine that the source material did not aid the translator. So, for translation, while I cannot state that this book flows as a well edited book might be expected to, it is acceptable.
In terms of the reasoning employed throughout, however, I cannot impress upon you enough how dire this was.
The writer, founder of the Academy of the Tarot (who publish the book), has two principal arguments.
One is that the authentic Tarot is that of Marseilles, most specifically that of Nicholas Conver, from 1760, and that this derives from a code derived from Ancient Egypt, and brought to Europe by a monk one of the Cenobites, a desert father. This monk, John Cassian, ensured the survival of the code of the Tarot, which combines elements of the cult of Isis, and Horus, Christianity and Freemasonry. The code is evident, if you look hard enough, and clearly contains a deep wisdom which can serve as a path to illumination. In specifying that this (Conver) Tarot is the authentic one, he has to argue that the older Tarocchi of Milan, Paris, et al, are derivatives. Conver modelled an older Tarot which pre-dates these others, but has not survived to this day. All other Tarot decks, even those which predate Conver, are corruptions, of the one true tarot.
The second argument revolves around the fallacy of divination, and takes square aim at the Esoteric Tarot decks, in particular Rider Waite Smith (1910) and associated decks,for their evident misinterpretation of the Tarot.
He makes extensive use of long-winded arguments to justify his position. So much so, that the great majority of the book, perhaps all but 25 pages, is taken up with arguments supporting his contention that Conver’s deck descends directly from the secret code brought from Egypt by Cassian. The evidence he brings is of the sort that requires a suspension of rational thought, to my mind. Such that, if you accept the premise, and start looking at the cards from that perspective, and try really, really hard, you might begin to see evidence that confirms your preconceptions and bias.
At times, this feels desperate - look, there is a torch in the card of the Papesse, sure you have to turn her upside down and realise that the red lining of the folds of her robe represent a torch, but anyway, she clearly represents Isis, as Isis is typically represented with a torch.
Or the staff of the Fool (who is actually a dead soul on a journey (via Arcana XV through XX) by boat along a river, to the chamber of justice presided over by Osiris) is inclined at thirty degrees. This clearly indicates - time, as 360/30 = 12 the number of calendar months, an hours in the day, signs of the zodiac etc. Additionally, we learn later, the staff is in two pieces, which differ in direction by three degrees, the three plus the thirty seen before indicate the thirty three degrees of masonry. The fact that Hiram (who built the Temple of Solomon, and is associated with Freemasonry) is mentioned in a correspondence between Cassian and the Pope of the time, with reference to the construction of a metaphorical Temple of believers, is enough to demonstrate conclusively that Freemasonry is entwined with the encoded wisdom of the Tarot. Also, this helps establish the fact that Freemasonry is an ancient tradition that precedes all evidence of its own existence by some two thousand years.
Let’s say that I could see past the unnecessary waffle, the convoluted, spurious and inaccurate arguments, laden with scholarly references that don’t prove anything pertinent to his arguments, let’s imagine this scenario, and move on to the actual decoding process. For, were the code itself to prove earth-shattering, deep, and instructive, perhaps, from the hundreds of pages you are asked to read through, you might feel that you got at least something useful from it. HEre to you would be disappointed.
Not only would you struggle to find forty pages with anything more than a handful of examples of the code , grammar and syntax of this miraculous method, neither would every card be explained to you. Nor would you ever have any idea of what any of the “Minor Arcana” mean, although he argues for a code across 78 cards.
In essence the secret lies in regarding the cards as a child would, and looking for commonalities, contradictions, and occasional geometric indications without seeking to overinterpret the significance of symbols. That is, a book seen in the card of La Papesse, might indicate...books, reading, study.
Having disparaged the ‘divination’ of other schools of thought, he then concedes that divination has some value, and makes a reasonable point that a reading is a snapshot of the present, and an opportunity to comprehend past influences, as well as stimulate ideas as to what future directions might be worth considering. In essence, he seems to agree with a whole range of other Tarot authors, few of whom would ever permit their readership to state that anything is written in stone.
Perhaps, he has not read many of them, but seen only that which confirms the preconceptions brought to his studies.
He makes reference to Jung, while missing the point of Jung’s arguments of Archetypes entirely. He explains the ‘science’ of Tarot, insisting that his contentions are scientifically demonstrable, until the point that his argument (already laboured, convoluted and self-contradictory) runs out of steam, and he essentially shrugs, and says, beyond a certain point we cannot know, as in science, the scientists can’t explain quantum physics, and so with the science of Tarot, we can’t explain the reasons either - just like the scientists!
No, taking all of that, were there to be a clearly explicated method, I might be inclined to advise the reader to wade through the nonsense, in the hope of finding something useful. Instead, we arrrive at the conclusion to read,
“In order to avoid doubts...we wish to address those who expect to obtain, from the sole reading of a book on the Tarot, a rapid and schematic possibility of competence allowing a practical and, above all, immediate use of its cards...from our writings it should appear clear that the Tarot is a custodian of a rich and complex Science, which cannot be completely explored in a summary and precipitous manner...The knowledge contained in the Tarot, moreover must be transmitted orally...the entire subject could not be illustrated in one sole writing...
Furthermore, in order to reduce the difficulty...we have limited research to certain basic mechanisms, postponing the completion of the entire system to later works. You will have noticed that...there has been no close examination of the single Arcana neither the 22 Major nor the 56 Minor...[this is because] a deeper analysis requires the knowledge of further principles not yet described here....”
And on, and on, All to say. Sorry,I have only given you a hint of what the codes, grammar and syntax of this miraculous language are. More to come, meanwhile you can always come and study with me at the Academy of Tarot...
Really? Hundreds of pages of argument that barely makes sense, based upon incredibly fatuous conceptions, with the most tenuous proofs I have ever seen offered for anything, a smattering of instruction, justified with “maybe it is undesirable even to write this stuff down, but I will do it anyway, at some future point. Nevertheless, despite this being a code which is accessible to all, it can only really be learned by a slow, ordered process of initiation.
Notes to my review.
I have read more than a hundred other books on Tarot, some good, some bad, some extraordinarily insightful.
I have read Jung, the works of Joseph Campbell, and quite a range of other books, including books on sciences, psychology, anthropology and so on (I estimate some ten thousand in total, to date.) I say this to counter any potential argument from the author, or anyone emotionally invested in this work, that might wish to suggest that I don’t know what I am talking about.
I’m pretty capable of juggling multiple themes within an argument, and following them to a carefully woven conclusion, the author did not lose me in complexity, I would argue that the author may have got lost in the complexity of what he attempted, in the process of which nearly all sense was lost.
I would call it gibberish, but that would be to insult Al-Gibr, whose mathematics was indeed above the conception of many who encountered it, but did not lack for internal logic, or demonstrable validity for all the comprehension issues that Algebra presents the non-mathematically inclined with.
Displaying 1 of 1 review