AUTHOR’S NOTE: Over the past 15 year I’ve largely eliminated the use of a “significator” card to represent the client in my public readings after recognizing that it adds little or nothing to the story shown by the rest of the spread. But I’ve recently experienced an epiphany regarding the subject.

When performing the initial step of the First Operation of the Golden Dawn’s “Opening of the Key” method, the reader is required to choose a significator based on what is known or surmised about the seeker to act as a “pointer” on which the rest of the reading depends. The intent is to leave that card in the deck, shuffle the cards, cut them into four piles from right to left, then locate the significator in one of the stacks to show the elemental focus that will presumably be most germane to the querent’s circumstances. Although I don’t honor the directive to abandon the reading if I can’t successfully “tell the Querent why he has come” with this exploratory device, I will keep it in the back of my mind as the session progresses and wait for an opportunity to tie it in.

According to Aleister Crowley in The Book of Thoth, its appearance in the right-most Yod pack (Wands/Fire) “refers to work, business, etc;” in the initial Heh pack (Cups/Water) at its left “to love, marriage or pleasure;” in the subsequent Vau pack (Swords/Air) “to trouble, loss, scandal, quarreling, etc.” and in the Heh final pack (Disks/Earth) “to money, goods, and such purely material matters.” (With unrelated spreads, I will occasionally conduct this step to obtain a preliminary “heads-up” before reading, and take the insight received “under advisement” in case the plot goes in a different direction.)

As a logical outgrowth of this approach for spreads like the Celtic Cross, it seems reasonable to select a significator based largely on the nature of the topic brought to the table by the sitter. While I prefer not to know the specific question at the start of a reading, it would be necessary to at least identify the life-area of interest to the querent. Regarding how to pick between the four court cards of that suit, I would avoid using Waite’s (Northern) Euro-centric, racially-exclusive and “ageist” considerations of complexion, hair color, level of maturity, etc. (something that Crowley also seemed to deliberately avoid in favor of what I call “proto-psychological” qualities).

I’m proposing that we hand the four cards to the sitter (ideally from a different pack so we don’t undermine the completeness of the “reading” deck) and have the individual identify the one to which he or she relates most strongly from a visual perspective. As I see it, this is as good a method as any for accomplishing the task. (In general-reading situations we could offer all sixteen court cards for the querent’s consideration.)

In practice, I would place the resulting significator from the second deck to one side on the table and deal out the cards from the primary deck into the spread I’ve chosen. Then, paying attention to the element represented by the significator and using the principles of “elemental affinity,” as part of my preliminary high-level overview I would scan the layout for cards of the same or compatible element, or conversely of elements that are hostile to the significator (those of “neutral” dignity would not figure into this evaluation). I would treat these cards as being particularly relevant to the seeker’s personal orientation to the matter regardless of whether they are prominently featured in the ensuing narrative. This is a refinement of the Golden Dawn’s use of the elemental sub-packs to target the client’s most pressing concern, whether conscious or subconscious.

The suggestion is that the querent’s native expression of the energies defined by the significator’s element would be either amplified or muted for good or ill depending on the nature of the modifying cards. This puts a different spin on the notion of “empowerment” in that it is independent of the detailed, card-by-card analysis. It lends a characteristic “tone” or environmental emphasis to the seeker’s state of engagement before commencement of the reading proper. This adds a second, more fundamental level of interpretation that highlights the involvement of the sitter as an active participant and not merely a passive recipient.

The seeker could be revealed as either fully committed or “sitting behind the 8-ball,” and I would take my cue from any preponderance of one influence over the other in determining how to “shade” the outcome in light of the contribution symbolized by the significator card. Will the querent be enabled or inconvenienced by either the elemental or qualitative bias of the interaction? Should the reader’s observations therefore be skewed accordingly (which may or may not be advisable if we want to avoid misguided counsel)? The significator card would not be read as a formal part of the layout, but only as a supplemental empowering or disabling input.

This is another instance where we as professional diviners will really have to earn our fee. As I sometimes say to those who complain that my innovations are over-complicating the situation, “Caveat lector!” (“Let the reader beware.”)