About the Suites and Court Titles used in The Rootwerx Deck
In the past,I never devoted a great deal of thought to the terms used by various decks to designate the suits:disks versus coins versus pentacles,rods versus staves versus wands,and so forth. Unless the choices were so far out that they required continual reference to the manual,as is the case in some of the really specialized decks,the adjustment would be automatic,and largely subconscious.
Similarly,as I set about designing The Rootwerx Deck,I began with whatever designations first came to mind. As the deck began to evolve,however,I was compelled to consider the matter more explicitly.
On one hand,a very specific suite designation,such as pentacles,tends to lend a sense of cohesiveness to the deck,and in that sense,might facilitate interpretation,particularly by neophytes,who typically don’t concern themselves with subtle nuances of the imagery as they struggle to come to grips with the larger-scale,and more generic meanings of the cards. On the other hand,a more flexible approach allows a great deal more subtlety and nuance in conveying the message of each individual card. After all,the feeling conveyed by a scimitar is quite distinct from that of a steak knife,or a whittling chisel,or a meat cleaver,or a carpenter’s hand saw. Consequently,I decided to designate the corresponding suite as ‘blades’. Similar logic led me to use ‘vessels’ for the water suite traditionally called ‘cups’. I opted for ‘disks’ in favor of the somewhat more generic ‘circles’ because,to my mind,circles seemed to convey a more mathematical connotation,and hence,were actually a bit more specialized. The fourth suite required a bit more cogitation. Initially I thought of ‘cylinders’,but that just didn’t feel quite right. I eliminated ‘staves’ and ‘wands’,since these are obviously pretty specific. Ultimately,I settled on the more common ‘rods’,as being sufficiently generic,without being distracting.
A similar thought process attended my deliberations over the nature of the court cards. Many of the better-known decks have employed a variety of titles,frequently in ways that are inconsistent with one another,which can result in confusion to readers who may be familiar with a different system. Ultimately,I settled on:princess,prince,queen,and king. For one thing,I wanted to maintain the male-female symmetry that is lost when the ‘lowest’ position is cast as a ‘page’. Also,the idea of a knight seemed as if it would be disconcertingly inconsistent with the use of modern imagery,in cards where that would be my choice,whereas,I could logically display a prince as wearing armor without risking distraction. Conversely,the notions of being ‘a prince among men,’ or of princely behavior seemed to ensure that application to an obviously contemporary figure would not seem anachronistic.
So,to synopsize,my suits are:blades,vessels,disks,and rods,and my court hierarchy is princess,prince,queen,and king. I think this combination affords me the greatest flexibility in ensuring the specific flavor of each card,while remaining sufficiently familiar so as to avoid becoming a distraction to either novice or more experienced readers.