PKT:Secret Trad#1 - Study Group

[Abrac]

I think I'm gonna have to take back what I said about a numbered sequence having no meaning for Waite. Rereading the paragraph we're now dealing with, it looks like he's saying there are two methods—numerical and random—and he simply disagrees with Mathers’ and Papus’ conclusions and methods. It’s clear from his comment on Strength, “For reasons which satisfy myself, this card has been interchanged with that of Justice, which is usually numbered eight.” that the order held special significance.

 

[Teheuti]

I think I'm gonna have to take back what I said about a numbered sequence having no meaning for Waite. Rereading the paragraph we're now dealing with, it looks like he's saying there are two methods—numerical and random—and he simply disagrees with Mathers’ and Papus’ conclusions and methods. It’s clear from his comment on Strength, “For reasons which satisfy myself, this card has been interchanged with that of Justice, which is usually numbered eight.” that the order held special significance.

Good summary: Two methods and Waite wasn't satisfied with what Mathers and Papus did with them.

 

[Teheuti]

I find the last sentence in the Mathers statement to be very confusing:

"Folly (0), on the other hand, will bring about an evil Reward (21)."

Why is The World an "evil Reward"?

The Paul Christian text that Mathers used as his basis reading says: 0 (Fool) is . . . the Expiation of the error or mistakes of bodily instincts.

Christian ends the piece with: "On the other hand, all will that unites itself to God in order to demonstrate Truth and operate Justice enters, after this life, into participation with the divine Omnipotence over beings and things, the eternal Reward (XXI) of enfranchised spirits."

So, Christian's World card is "eternal Reward."

Perhaps Mathers just meant for The World to be "Reward," while the intervention of Folly could turn that promised reward evil?

 

[Abrac]

From Waite's Preface:

In the second part, I have dealt with the symbolism according to some of its higher aspects, and this also serves to introduce the complete and rectified Tarot, which is available separately, in the form of colored cards, the designs of which are added to the present text in black and white. They have been prepared under my supervision—in respect of the attributions and meanings—by a lady who has high claims as an artist.​

The context suggests he gave her all the "attributions and meanings."; apparently for the whole deck. By his own account he oversaw the creation of the majors closely. He probably gave her more leeway on the minors but he may have made suggestions for those too.

Where the PKT contradicts the cards, in my opinion it's simply Waite thinking about something else and wrote the wrong thing. His Fellowship of the Rosy Cross rituals that, I'm assuming, had no other editor than Waite himself, are full of such mistakes.

 

[Teheuti]

He probably gave her more leeway on the minors but he may have made suggestions for those too.

There are a few specific elements in the Minors that could only have come from Waite and GD knowledge papers that she wouldn't have direct access to.

Waite does say they were helped by one other person (but not who). The most obvious candidates are Arthur Machen, Florence Farr or Yeats.

 

[Abrac]

Mary, further down the document in "Meanings of the Cards," it has the following for The Universe:

21. The Universe.—Completion, Good Reward; R. Evil Reward, or Recompense.

Sounds like he was referring to The Universe in its reversed meaning.

 

[Yelell]

From Waite's Preface:

In the second part, I have dealt with the symbolism according to some of its higher aspects, and this also serves to introduce the complete and rectified Tarot, which is available separately, in the form of colored cards, the designs of which are added to the present text in black and white. They have been prepared under my supervision—in respect of the attributions and meanings—by a lady who has high claims as an artist.​

The context suggests he gave her all the "attributions and meanings."; apparently for the whole deck. By his own account he oversaw the creation of the majors closely. He probably gave her more leeway on the minors but he may have made suggestions for those too.

Where the PKT contradicts the cards, in my opinion it's simply Waite thinking about something else and wrote the wrong thing. His Fellowship of the Rosy Cross rituals that, I'm assuming, had no other editor than Waite himself, are full of such mistakes.

I think I remember him writing he was very involved in the fool, high priestess and the hanged man especially. I'm not sure "They have been prepared under my supervision—in respect of the attributions and meanings" really implies how involved he was at all times. I've found supervising can mean anything from constant overbearing oversight to "I'll sit back take credit for what ever good things you to do!" and everything in between. I suppose it's not possible he wrote some of the PKT parts first, and that was part of what he gave to direct her (and she didn't follow it quite exactly)?

 

[Yelell]

Mary, further down the document in "Meanings of the Cards," it has the following for The Universe:

21. The Universe.—Completion, Good Reward; R. Evil Reward, or Recompense.

Sounds like he was referring to The Universe in its reversed meaning.

I saw that. Is that supposed to be your fate if your foolish self doesn't learn what you're supposed to from the journey?

 

[Teheuti]

I suppose it's not possible he wrote some of the PKT parts first, and that was part of what he gave to direct her (and she didn't follow it quite exactly)?

We don't know exactly when Waite wrote The Key to the Tarot - probably shortly before publication as he was writing his long and complex work, The Hidden Church of the Holy Graal just before that. As I said he probably gave Pixie materials from Chambers, Etteilla and Mathers as we can see lines and phrases taken directly out of them. We have Waite's other writings on Tarot, and on identical symbols in other works which give us strong clues as to his intentions.

We really have to clarify what are known facts based on concrete evidence, where those end, and what is theory or speculation. New facts change what we know and anyone who is truly professional in their approach to history and biography welcomes new information even when it overturns their pet theories.

Theories have to be evaluated carefully and should be closely based on the evidence. When it is just personal fancy, wild speculation or one's own late 20th century experiences, serious researchers will often discount it until the person comes back with some evidence to back it up. It's not that they are necessarily wrong - it's that nothing can be determined without some evidence and knowledge of the times.

BTW, the astro-physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson is wonderful to listen to because he's so clear about just these things. He loves story but he doesn't mistake it for fact or worthwhile theories (each of which he clearly distinguishes). I recommend the recent interview with Charlie Rose (pbs.org) or anything else.

 

[MissChiff]

Neil Degrasse Tyson is my husbands boy crush....