Some Comments about Sallie Nichols'
Jung and Tarot
by (jk)
Sallie Nichols' book on Tarot, Jung and Tarot, is one of the most absurd and tedious works of pop fiction on the subject of Tarot that has yet been produced. It was also, given that it was published just after the beginning of the postmodern era of Tarot, apparently quite influential.
Nichols starts lying right from the very first sentence:
The Tarot is a mysterious deck of cards of unknown origin.
—and she just keeps spinning falsehoods and irrelevancies.
On page 5 she writes:
Actually, very little is known about the history of the Tarot cards or about the origin and evolution of the suit designations and the symbolism of the twenty-two Trumps.
AND—
It seems apparent that these old cards were conceived deep in the guts of human experience, at the most profound level of the human psyche. It is to this level in ourselves that they will speak.
The first claim, that Tarot has a mysterious history and origin, is demonstrably false, and you can read the Tarot FAQ to get more information about the facts of the history of Tarot.
Nichols' second premise, that Tarot was conceived in "guts", instead of in minds, is highly questionable given the true symbolic origins of Tarot, which have much more to do with ancient Greek philosophy and Roman literary motifs than they do with some universal entrails. However, the appeal to something anti-intellectual and anti-rational is quite strong in pomo Tarot, and in Jungian approaches to Tarot.
Later, on page 5, Nichols explains her use of the Marseilles deck, as opposed to some earlier or later version of Tarot, to provide a basis for her Jungian analysis:
Playing cards being perishable, the "original" Tarot no longer exists, and the few remnants of old decks still preserved in museums do not correspond exactly with any pack currently in print. Thus no present-day Tarot can be called in any sense authentic. But the Marseilles version, in general, preserves the feeling tone and style of the earliest designs.
Of course if, as Nichols claims, the "original Tarot" no longer exists, and indeed she claims Tarot's origins are shrouded in mystery, how can she know which designs are truly the "earliest", or what about them is or is not preserved in the Marseilles deck? What kind of "authenticity" is she really talking about, and how does she make judgments about it when she asserts the "original" can't be known? Furthermore, how does the reader know whether her claims for all this presumed mystery are true?
ALSO—
There are other reasons for choosing the Marseilles deck. First, its design transcends the personal. There is no evidence, for example, that it was created by one individual as are most of our contemporary Tarot decks. And second (again unlike most contemporary Tarot packs), the Marseilles deck comes to us unaccompanied by an explanatory text.
And right here she gets to the main point, that in her view, any "explanatory text", any attempt to create a system of symbolism, or to denote such a system in Tarot cards, which is certainly what has been done with occult Tarot, is somehow inferior to the "eruptions" of ignorant ideas which can be generated by simply peering mindlessly at mysterious images (AKA, Jungian (A)rchetypes). Indeed, it seems to the extent that one can BE ignorant about Tarot symbolism, he is validating what Nichols seems to think is Tarot's clearly (A)rchetypal construction.
She writes, pointing out the main "shortcoming" (in her view) of occult Tarot decks in this respect:
This is not the case with contemporary Tarot decks, most of which were devised by a KNOWN individual or group, and many of which are accompanied by books in which the authors set forth in words the abstruse ideas which they have presumably presented in the picture cards. This is the case, for example, with the cards and texts created by A. E. Waite, Aleister Crowley, "Zain", and Paul Foster Case.
Although the text which accompanies the Tarot in such cases is usually introduced as an elucidation of the symbols portrayed on the cards, the net effect is more that of an illustrated book. In other words, it is as if the Tarot cards were devised as illustrations for certain verbal concepts rather than that the cards ERUPTED SPONTANEOUSLY first and the text was inspired by them. As a result, the personalities and objects pictured in these cards [i.e., in the occult decks] seem more allegorical in character than symbolic; the pictures appear to illustrate verbalized concepts rather than suggesting feelings and insights wholly beyond the reach of words.
What an amazingly anti-intuitive (using the pomoist notion of "intuitive") idea—Tarot cards were devised as illustrations for certain verbal concepts—YES!!. That is precisely why Tarot cards were devised, along with being nice (and sometimes ironic) ornaments for playing cards. The Cardinal Virtues (VIII-Strength, XI-Justice, XIV-Temperance), for example, are illustrations of the ancient (verbal) concepts indicated by their titles. The Hanged Man ILLUSTRATES a concept—betrayal—which could mean something locally, to an Italian used to seeing traitors hung up by one leg, but also allegorically, extending the local CONCEPT to point to Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus, both of whom came to personify the meaning of this card as it evolved from its "earliest" forms. In other words, if you know the meaning of the illustrations, of the symbols, you know that the feelings and the insights and the concepts are assuredly NOT beyond the reach of words.
And there's the basic rub—the key to the whole pomo-Tarot plan—which is to create a marketable mystery, a product which is beyond the reach of words, and can therefore be made to fit the imagination of any individual customer. No wonder Angeles Arrien, when she wanted to dump Jungianism onto the Thoth deck, had to get rid of Aleister Crowley and instead "give" the deck to Frieda Harris alone. In fact, Nichols provides the basis of Arrien's "reasoning" for excluding Crowley and extolling the virtues of the artist, Harris.
Nichols writes (page 6):
The difference between a Tarot deck accompanied by a text and the Marseilles deck which STANDS ALONE is a subtle one; but it is important in terms of our approach to the Tarot. To our way of thinking, it is the difference between reading an illustrated book and walking into an art gallery. Both are valuable experiences [of course Arrien denies this with respect to Book of Thoth and only values the "artistic" experience], but they are quite different in their effect. The illustrated book stimulates intellect and empathy, connecting us with the insights and feelings of others. The art gallery stimulates imagination, forcing us to dip down into our own creativity and experience for amplification and understanding.
Arrien takes this further [in The Tarot Handbook], noting the superiority of Harris' "Universal symbols" to any attempt by Crowley to explain them:
Somehow I feel that the visual design of this deck holds to her [Harris'] perception of Tarot as being a tool for inner guidance or as being a validation, rather than a substitute, for one's own intuitive processes. I feel these visual symbols STAND BY THEMSELVES [Nichols: STANDS ALONE], because of the artist's integrity and commitment to their being representative of something greater, "God's Picture Book." It is Crowley's interpretation of these symbols, regardless of his reputation, with which I have issue; and it was this issue which led me to interpret these symbols from a cross-cultural and universal view, honoring their visual execution.
Do you see the con?
No?
Let's go back to Nichols, page 1 of Jung and Tarot:
In Central Europe [read: Gypsyland or Bohemia-mart], these quaint Tarot cards have remained in constant use for gaming and fortunetelling. Now, in America, the Tarot has suddenly surfaced into public consciousness.
Jung and Tarot was first published in 1980, so one is left to speculate about what Nichols thinks "suddenly" and "public consciousness" actually mean. I suspect "suddenly" refers to the point in time at which enough Tarotier hacks realized they could turn Tarot into another newage racket, and "public consciousness" refers to the Jungian conception of the "collective UNconcious"—one needing to be mostly in a state of unconsciousness to believe the malarkey Nichols and Arrien (and their ilk) write about Tarot.
Nichols continues, having set her unprotected (by the facts) readers up for the "kill", she then sinks in the Jungian hook—
Dramatic ERUPTIONS of this kind usually mean that neglected aspects of ourselves seek recognition. No doubt, like our dream figures, the Tarot personalities have intruded themselves into our complacency in order to bring us MESSAGES OF GREAT IMPORT; but modern man, steeped as he is in a verbal culture, finds the nonverbal picture language of the Tarot difficult to decipher.
It is nothing short of astounding, in our enthusiastically illiterate culture, in our culture of the PURE image (where the medium is entirely the message), for someone to seriously write such a thing as:
...modern man, steeped as he is in a verbal culture, finds the nonverbal picture language of the Tarot difficult to decipher.
True, there is some difficulty in deciphering the symbolism, because it is unfamiliar to most of us, as is the way in which it was used and considered by those who made Tarot, but that's got nothing to do with modern people being visually handicapped or TOO verbal.
Note how well the con plays here—Nichols "establishes" that Tarot is ANCIENT and MYSTERIOUS and even of UNKNOWN ORIGIN [four words dear to the pop Tarotier], and then tells us that the SUDDEN interest in Tarot, in America, leaves NO DOUBT but that the Tarot personalities (the personality "typing" will NO DOUBT shortly follow) have erupted into our consciousness in order to bring us messages of great import. AND, if that's true, AND if we are a culturally VERBAL and not VISUAL modern man, we sure as hell want to be able to know what the messages of great import mean, don't we? Yet, Nichols has just told us that we can't "get it" because we are modern and too verbal. Enter Sallie Noble-Pollack-Greer-Nichols,or whatever her name may be in any particular avatar, to give us the "true meanings", or better than this, they will teach us how to find the true meanings IN OURSELVES!! Then we can be cured of our useless "modern" thinking disease and can become postmodern, postverbal, postintellectual, and postcoherent—just like them.
How exciting??!!
How ridiculous.
Now, just pull back from the Jungian buffet for a moment and THINK!! Where have we seen this very same con, over and over again here on alt.Tarot? Why—from the very people who claim to have "special and amazing" powers, or who were taught by "old and sage" Tarot teachers, or who very earnestly think you ought to send them lots of money to find out how the Tarot can help YOU (out of your money)—the very same people who always whine whenever someone here (like jk particularly) asks them to justify ANY of their myriad unsupported and unsupportable claims about Tarot.
Jungianism, as it has been used and abused by pomos, is simply a license (like they needed one) to vondanikenize Tarot.
It is wise in any study of Jung (and on how his ideas might relate to Tarot) to recall something—there is a considerable difference between Jung (and Jung's writings) and the vast majority of his secular (or even his "ordained") followers. In the same way that Aleister Crowley inspires a great many nitwits with whom he would have had NO patience whatsoever, we can not justly blame Jung for the poor quality of so many of his adherents. Or can we?
Jung was a brilliant scholar and a profound thinker and was greatly concerned to be taken seriously as a scientist. Most of his inheritors are neither brilliant, nor scholars, and certainly are not scientists. What has followed from "Jungians", in respect to their ability (not to mention their interest) to educate the public about the subject of Tarot, has largely been a waste of time.
Tarot DOES concern a story about the development of (a)rchetypes, but it is NOT a story about the development of (A)rchetypes, in any Jungian sense—save that Jung's ideas DO derive from the same occult tradition that ALSO adopted Tarot back in the late 18th century and so we might, if Jung had written any extensive commentary on Tarot, expect to see a commonality of spirit between Jung's ideas, and those of what might be called "occult orthodoxy" on the subject. Indeed, it is this commonality of spirit which makes Jung worth reading for psychological insights about how occultists have approached Tarot.
Nevertheless, Jung himself manifested almost NO interest in Tarot cards whatsoever, except to rather blithely and UNscientifically conclude that Tarot seemed to "distantly descend" (whatever that means) from the "archetypes of transformation". Indeed, Jung says a great deal more about UFOs, for example, than he does about Tarot cards.
And, if we needed any more support for the view that Jung and Tarot only briefly and unremarkably "met", and for the view that the blending of Tarot with Jungianism is entirely postmodern, just look at the comments of Russell Lockhart on the back cover of the "Jung and Tarot" (the paperback):
Two great traditions are wedded in this work: the irrepressible and magical Tarot and Jung's archetypal psychology. This wedding, long overdue, is achieved not only through the wit and wisdom of Sallie Nichols, but through her obvious love and care [sic] for the images of Tarot.
So, according to these remarks, we have Sallie Nichols solely to blame for this nuptial. The "wedding" never took place back in Jung's time, at least not with Jung officiating or participating, because he paid little attention to Tarot cards.
Finally, note also the unintentionally ironic claim made at the bottom of the back cover in the little bio on Sallie Nichols:
In a series of seminars entitled A Tarot Trip into Jung's Psychology presented at the Theosophical Center in Hollywood [of course] and elsewhere, she successfully introduced both the Tarot and Jung's concept of the archetypes to audiences RELATIVELY UNFAMILIAR WITH EITHER SUBJECT.
And that's the kind of audience the pop Tarotiers ALWAYS have "success" with—ignorant ones.
Some time later, in response to a poster who claimed that Sallie Nichols was attempting to analyze Tarot in the same way I had analyzed the symbolism of Waite's Chariot card, I provided these additional comments about Nichols' book:
The poster remarked:
"JK referred me to the excellent research into the meaning of the Chariot, and Sallie Nichols executes a similar action—with the Tarot of Marseilles."
To which I replied as follows:
No, she does not. I was writing about what the Chariot card, Waite's Chariot card, actually means. I conjectured as little as possible.
On the other hand, Nichols writes (about the Chariot):
The word chariot brings many associations to mind. It might be worthwhile to pause here a moment to explore some of your own.
She invites ignorant conjectures right from the start.
But, why is it worthwhile to do that? As we've seen here over the years, people NEVER produce anything worthwhile by ignorantly conjecturing about what it all means. It's a waste of time, and particularly a waste of time to expect those conjectures, those personal associations, to then be interesting to anyone else. This is a "method" suggested by people who do not know what they are talking about to other people who do not know what they are talking about.
Then, not waiting for her idiot readers to do as she has suggested, which is to explore the readers' associations, Nichols starts "implanting" associations:
Do you think of Ben Hur and victory? Or Alexander and world domination? Or do you picture Apollo, the sun god, whose chariot still commands the heavens?
She's programming, not associating, and she's certainly not interested in the mindless conjectures of her readers. After all, if THAT were the way to figuring out everything, why the hell would they need Nichols or anyone else, telling them what to associate? The woman filled up 392 pages with conjectures. Why do that if individual "associating" was such a hot ticket to learning Tarot?
It's certainly of course reasonable to note the cultural prevalence of chariot images. It is still a familiar motif, if one that most people little understand (historically or occultly). But at some point it's also reasonable to talk about this motif as it relates to Tarot. Does Nichols ever do that? No.
Here is one of her symbolic assessments [again, recall she's supposedly elucidating the symbolism of the Marseilles Tarot version of the card]:
The wheels of the Tarot chariot are put on sideways in a most peculiar manner. Ezekiel's chariot, too, had unusual wheels, which symbolized its numinous powers. Perhaps the Tarot means to show us that this chariot also has magical qualities.
Or perhaps the wheels are drawn that way simply because it was a conventional design, and so possess NO esoteric meaning whatsoever. But that possibility never occurs to her.
You can "perhaps" the Tarot into whatever you want. But to promote that method of invention as beneficial to anyone actually interested in learning Tarot is just stupid, or dishonest.
Nichols says nothing pertinent about the role of the chariot as an (a)rchetype, that is, as a Tarot paradigm that developed from the 15th century up to today. That's because she's so busy trying to cram the symbolism into (A)rchetypes, pre-fab notions of symbolic meaning which exclude the particular in pursuit of the universal, that she has no interest in telling anyone anything FACTually true about the card.
To make this relevant to her audience, she doesn't waste her time talking about triumphal processions, Petrarchan motifs, or Masonic mythologies—hell no, she cuts right to the (A)rchetypal chase, and displays an image of Superman, whom she offers as an example of the "Hero Archetype", the promotion of which comic-book ideology is far more important to her mission than explaining to anyone what Tarot cards mean.
And, in discussion of the "Hero", she misses the boat even from a "Jungian" perspective. On page 145 she introduces a discussion of a version of the Chariot card, which displays a child, instead of a warrior, on the chariot. The child is framed on either side by labels with the words, "fama" and "vola", which Nichols claims mean "fame" and "will power" respectively.
In Italian, the phrase fama vola can mean "fame flies" or "rumors spread rapidly", the Latin predecessor being, fama volat. The notion is that reputation, for good or ill, true or false, travels more quickly (and often much more fleetingly) than the man, as if borne upon a chariot, for example. I explain the relevance of this idea to The Chariot in my essay on Waite's card, and it is interesting that the CONCEPT appears to predate occultist involvement with Tarot.
In addition to the fact Nichols invents convenient and incorrect translations to support whatever silly ideas she may have about Tarot, she doesn't even recognize opportunities to promote Jung's ideas when they are obviously relevant. For example, here in this image of a child-charioteer one COULD employ the "invincible child" (A)rchetype, or "child-as-hero".
Here is some of what Jung actually says about this idea:
...the child is endowed with superior powers and despite all dangers, will unexpectedly pull through. The 'child' is born out of the womb of the unconscious, begotten out of the depths of human nature, or rather out of living Nature herself. It is a personification of vital forces quite outside the limited range of our conscious mind; of ways and possibilities of which our one-sided conscious mind knows nothing; a wholeness which embraces the very depths of Nature. It represents the strongest, the most ineluctable [unavoidable] urge in every being, namely the urge to realize itself.—"The Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious", sec. 289, "The Invincibility of the Child"
Now, note what Aleister Crowley writes about his version of the card:
Cancer is the cardinal sign of the element of Water, and represents the first keen onrush of that element. Cancer also represents the path which leads from the great Mother Binah to Geburah, and is thus the influence of the Supernals descending through the Veil of Water (which is blood) upon the energy of man, and so inspires it...The central and most important feature of the card is its centre—the Holy Grail...In the centre is radiant blood; the spiritual life is inferred; light in the darkness.—"Book of Thoth", Chariot essay
The "Holy Grail", the "great Mother Binah", the "womb of the unconscious", "the most ineluctable urge", the "radiant blood"—these all describe the same ideas, the descent into consciousness OUT of a higher, but more primal, UNconscious, DARK (but light-specked) state. Recall our discussion of corn-lights—see, I wasn't just being sarcastic.
Now, THIS is what Nichols makes of her "find":
In this quaint hand-made Tarot, the charioteer is revealed to be a naked babe, naive, defenceless, and vulnerable. He sits precariously atop his chariot displaying twin banners, one of which reads FAMA and the other VOLA. If fame and will power are indeed his guiding principles, this precocious hero is surely headed for disaster.
That's it, her notion of this figure is as a youthful symbol of "ego inflation", not as an ultimately all-conquering force of the psyche. Her reference to him as a "hero" is meant ironically, not (A)rchetypally.
As I've said many times, if you want to read about Jung and Tarot, read Jung. Don't waste your time on halfwit "Jungians" like Sallie Nichols or on junk like Jung and Tarot.
(jk)
