bigcaat said:
"The Ace of Swords is a Sword surmounted by a Crown, from which depend on either side an olive and a palm branch, symbolic of mercy and severity; around it are Six Hebrew Yods, recalling the Six days of the Mosaic Creation. "
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/mathers/mtar01.htm
This is really the only quote of the three that you mention that is worth quoting, since Mathers was the source of most of the Golden Dawn Tarot papers, and the Golden Dawn is where Waite learned Tarot.
It may, or may not, interest you to know that Mathers wrote another document called Book 'T'. And here is the relevant part of the document, concerning the Ace of Swords;
"A WHITE Radiating Angelic Hand, issuing from clouds, and grasping the hilt of a sword, which supports a White Radiant Celestial Crown; from which depend, on the right, the olive branch of Peace; and on the left, the palm branch of suffering.
Six Vaus fall from its point. It symbolizes "Invoked," as contrasted with Natural Force: for it is the Invocation of the Sword. Raised upward, it invokes the Divine crown of Spiritual Brightness, but reversed it is the Invocation of Demonic Force; and becomes a fearfully evil symbol. It represents, therefore, very great power for good or evil, but invoked; and it also represents whirling Force, and strength through trouble. It is the affirmation of Justice upholding Divine Authority; and it may become the Sword of Wrath, Punishment, and Affliction."
Now, the obvious questions are;
Which attribution is correct?
Why did Mathers give two different attributions?
Firstly, the document you quote
"The Tarot, Its Occult Significance, Use in Fortune-Telling, and Method of Play, Etc." was published by Mathers in 1888, and it was available to the general public. It mostly followed the attributions of Eliphaz Levi. Waite himself mentions it in his PKT bibliography and says of it rather scathingly;
"It is a mere sketch written in a pretentious manner and is negligible in all respects."
Of course, this on its own wouldn't serve as proof that the symbols are not 'yods', but it does cast some doubt as to the wisdom of taking what Mathers says in this booklet, as being definitive for Waite's Tarot. Mathers was also under oath not to reveal any of the secrets of the Order to the public.
Book 'T', however, does provide convinving proof because it is the booklet issued to Golden Dawn initiates, (and thus Waite), to provide them with the 'true' attributions of the Tarot. So when he says that they are 'vaus', rather than 'yods', this is almost certainly what Waite intends them to be.
And, there does seem to be a good reason, within Golden Dawn Dogma, for them being 'vaus'.
bigcaat said:
Yods are symbols. Seeing how they move is interpretation. I know a yod when I see one
Are you certain? It seems from the evidence, that you might not.
bigcaat said:
and I also know a person who is just interested in arguing, rather than having a courteous, informative, discussion. So, like Fulgour, I will bow out of my own thread. It's a shame. I was looking forward to intelligent discussion on the matter.
Caat
So when you say there are 'yods' in the Ace of Swords, and I say I think you are probably wrong, you believe that is discourteous, uninformative, and unintelligent?
You are right, that is a shame.
Whereas had I replied to your post by saying "Thank you for sharing that wonderful, intuitive and empowering insight with us", then presumably that would be both courteous, informative and extremely intelligent.
It certainly wouldn't have been honest.
For anyone who is interested in an intelligent debate, there is a question that has been raised by this whole exchange and that is why would 'vaus' be more appropriate than 'yods' for the Ace of Swords, or indeed whether they are appropriate at all.
Vincent