AUTHOR’S NOTE: Any historian who writes about the development of cartomancy in the West will eventually have to deal with the fact that there are three “royal” or face cards – King, Queen and Jack – in a standard playing-card deck and four “court” cards – King, Queen, Knight and Valet or Knave – in a tarot deck of the Tarot de Marseille design. (I won’t go into earlier or later variations.) I’ve seen few attempts to reconcile this mismatch other than those that correlate the Jack to the Knight (who exemplifies action) and relegate the Valet to a footnote.

In his book The Cartomancy of Folk Witchcraft, Wiccan Roger Horne makes the obvious connection of the playing-card King (who seeks power) to the tarot King (who stands for paternal authority and mastery), and the playing-card Queen (who symbolizes wisdom) to the tarot Queen (who is associated with patience and contemplation). While these pairings are not mutually exclusive, he then departs from the norm by relating the Jack to the Valet under the assumption that both are about undertaking something new. This is fine as far as it goes if the sole intent is to convey immaturity and unreliability, but in the Medieval court the valet was technically a “squire” or knight-in-training who assisted his master but wielded no direct influence of his own. He was definitely not the “mover-and-shaker” that the knight was, nor does he align well with the Jack.

Consequently, I find Horne’s premise a bit of a stretch. In practical use of one deck or the other for divination, none of this makes any difference, but as a way to “tie up loose ends” I think it is unconvincing. Why not just equate the Jack to the Knight and acknowledge that the Valet was a later addition that rounded out the historical “cast of characters?” While it strikes me that the Jack is more of a restless (and reckless) “player” than the sworn and steadfast Knight, he can be construed as similarly mobile while the Valet is standing “stock-still,” awaiting direction. This would be more in line with what I see as the traditional interpretation of the Jack.

While I’ve had considerable exposure to the presumed origins of the tarot, I haven’t penetrated the symbolism of the playing cards to the same degree, so upon further examination it may turn out to be different than I suppose. In fact, it could be merely a perceived inconsistency that has a reasonable explanation. I’ll have to reserve judgment until I know more, but that’s how it looks to me at the moment.