AUTHOR’S NOTE: I just set aside the two uninspiring tarot books I’ve been reading and went looking for a volume on playing-card divination. A member of the online cartomancy community recommended Roger Horne’s Cartomancy in Folk Witchcraft, and I was able to buy it on Kindle for a small sum. His writing style is a breath of fresh air for the seasoned divination author (myself included) who is tired of the rhetorical bluster and bombast that passes for excellence in much of the published literature. Although I haven’t reached it yet, the text also purports to cover the Tarot de Marseille’s non-scenic “pip” cards.

In it, Horne makes a compelling argument for treating the court or “face” cards (Kings, Queens and Jacks) of the standard 52-card pack as not depicting specific people in most cases but rather the motivations, goals and desires of someone (or some other entity) who has an interest in the outcome. It could be another individual; an environmental (i.e. situational) or societal expectation; or the person asking the question. This “someone” wants to gain (or avoid losing) “something” from the occasion as shown by the rest of the cards, and the presence of a relevant face card in the spread can be interpreted as an opportunity to do just that. We only have to figure out what it’s trying to say and how to make it work for us. In any event, the consequences “for good or ill” will be meted out by the identified transaction and enjoyed/suffered by the querent according to the testimony of the other cards in the spread.

This approach offers a more productive way to handle face/court cards when the involvement of external parties is not indicated by the nature of the question and is not anticipated to be a factor in the answer. It neatly resolves the conundrum of whether they portray: 1) a human agency; 2) a psychological attitude or behavioral posture of the querent; or 3) an impersonal force at work in the affair. In this model, their characteristic interaction represents an impartial urge or impulse within the course of events rather than a physical participant with a private agenda. This will ideally take most of the “personality profiling” guesswork out of the equation while we’re sorting through the various possible meanings. I also like the idea of decoupling the usual age, gender and appearance implications from the analysis, something I generally do anyway but this approach solidifies the practice.

When the context of the reading does invite consideration of partisan engagement, the Kings are after power and control, the Queens seek (or impart) wisdom and the Jacks pursue achievement through action. The Knaves, Valets or Pages of the tarot don’t make an appearance in the playing-card deck, but they usually convey incipient aspirations within the scope of their suit that are unfocused and only imperfectly conceived (typically of the “learning opportunity” kind). I would remain alert for individuals with these intentions to enter the matter. If the circumstances aren’t conducive to such intervention, turning these personified drives into dispassionate aims and impersonal objectives within the purview of the reading will be the challenge in making all of this work.