Last week I posted musings + prompts based off of the first image shown below. You can revisit that post here if you like. It’s a card I pulled from a reprint of a deck called 1930 Tarot de Marseille which was originally produced by Grimaud. The card is titled (in English) The Lover. Note: not “The Lovers”.
A teeny bit of history; The original 1930 Tarot de Marseille* was a revival of Nicolas Conver’s Tarot de Marseille, (originally printed in 1760), by Paul Marteau who was the director of the Grimaud company. The printing of the Grimaud deck did in fact, take place in 1930. The deck I have, is a reprint of the 1930 deck which was an interpretation of the 1760 deck. Phew, hopefully that made some sense. Unfortunately the events of WWII ground the production of the original 1930 deck to a halt. I love the Grimaud version from 1930 and can’t find a version of it that won’t send me down a deck purchasing rabbit hole I might never financially recover from, so I bought the reprint. My feelings are mixed at best.
In that post I made clear that the stars of the show for me were the hands. Also noting that one of the central figure’s hands, was behind the figure on his left, our right. I left out two things however; The first was that, the figure on the right (from our vantage-point) looks to have very twisted arms or some form of double jointedness that I am not yet familiar with. I left it out because I figured it could be chocked up to artistic license or a simple mistake. The second omission was one that kicked me in the chin the second I slammed my laptop shut and looked at the card left sitting in front of me one last time before closing down my deck. Why does this person have bare feet? Really folks? We’re toiling over a shoeless human?
Today, I was researching more Marseille decks, and I found this!
Now, hold on a sec! What?!? The same card from a deck that predates the deck I own by over 250 years resolves both issues??? First, the hands belong to different people and second, our guy has shoes! This card is from the 1672 Francois Chosson Tarot. I don’t have a copy of the 1760 Conver deck, but I have tried to find a digital version to see from whence this arm switcheroo came. I do have a copy of another reproduction of that deck called the CBD (Conver Ben Dov) Tarot de Marseille, and while the central figure has located footwear, the arms are back to making no sense (see image at the bottom). I only include the CBD TdM example to be thorough, but it’s getting a little into the weeds and beside the point. The reason I am writing any of this is to illustrate how small differences in artwork can change up the flavor of a reading significantly.
In the 1672 printing, (2nd image), it looks like both the central figure and the figure to his left (our right) are holding each other back. As if the two of them, for perhaps different reasons, are ready to rumble with the third figure. It evokes intrigue. What happened? Is she going to need someone to hold her earrings? It’s very, “The Real Housewives of Villages de Marseille.” In the 1930 reprint, (1st image), emotions seem a bit more muted.
Knowing myself, and my practice, I would read these two cards differently. There are myriad ways in which it could be interpreted and the question would matter more than anything, but here’s an example of how this could be read differently. Remember, there is no one answer, ever.
If a querent asked me what they should do about their current partner and I pulled “The Lover” (the shoeless fella, and our double-jointed wonder) from the 1930 deck that I own, I’d say, “dump ‘em. Life’s too short for a person who can’t be bothered with shoes. Why aren’t they wearing them? Is this a case of lack of hygiene? Has someone’s hand (or something else) been unexpectedly caught in the cookie jar (or something else), resulting in a quick dressing situation? What do you mean you couldn’t bother with footwear? I’m sure excuses can be made, but let’s be so for real; we’re not going to bat in the realm of romance for people who don’t love themselves enough to wear shoes. And why are they leaving the hard work to you anyway? Make them fight their own battles and go find your peace, because this isn’t it.” This is in the context of a relationship, mind you. There are dozens of valid reasons why a person might not be wearing shoes in the context of other questions, but we’re talking about romantic partnerships in this particular reading.
If I was asked the same question and got the 1672 version of The Lover, however, it would sound more like, “You have a true partner here. Someone who will stand by your side when times get hard, and will fight alongside you. If you’re looking for a true partnership, things might be bumpy and you might have to deal with some parties who object, but fuck ‘em, this is your person.” Note, no mention of the shoes. While the shoes in this version might be flashy, at least they’re present!
All of this to illustrate that the small things matter. What we notice matters. Even if that isn’t the point on a larger scale, it’s the point to you! (Or in this case, me.) And your point of view is integral to not only your life, but the lives of those around you. The Art of Noticing is elemental, and so many have lost the satisfaction and validation that can be found in it.
Go forth and notice!
The Devil is in the Details.
* Tarot de Marseille is a name given to several decks that were published in Marseille, France. Marseille was a prominent epicenter for card / deck production in the 17th and 18th centuries. Translated to English it simply means, Tarot of Marseille.
-She Said With Love
