La Force
I've always seen the Majors as the cards with the most meaning and these are not part of the tradition of Cartomancy. These are Golden Dawn and keys to the system.
I agree
The pips I see as a mix of Cartomancy and ideas from other people at the time such as Etteilla, Mlle. Lenormand, Madame Clement and Julia Orsini and other 'Gypsy' meanings common at the time. I can only assume they were brought together by a common thread and not just random imaginings.
Yes the pips are a mix of cartomancy, taken from other traditions and sources. I think he brought what he felt worked best as in common thread, not saying it was of random imaginings at all. but on the other hand there are a couple card where I was like where on earth did he get that from :confuse:
I don't believe Waite created new 'meanings' and am not sure where you got this from. I have already shown you an essay written by Waite on French Cartomancy and others have talked about his research into the subject. He was deeply and well read in issues of the occult.
Yes I read the essay, that should've been included in the PKT. seriously, cause at least his essay made more sense, then the meaning on pages 186 - 195.
These meaning have me but anyway I feel that Waite should've at least made reference to where he got them from. as it stands "UNKNOWN Author/ Resource" or at least have said those meaning were past down by a gypsy or something.
I am not arguing or disregarding how deeply well read he was.
I don't agree that Waite "goes off on his own",he was part of a magic circle of scholars. I don't think he gave as much (magical/esoteric) importance to the minors and perhaps based his meanings on common interpretations.
What I meant by going off on his own, is that he took upon himself to mix up on the meaning, trying to suit everyone. which I my option just sets the road for confusion, because most of them are contradictory.
How can I say this. okay think people are creating decks based of RW and his meanings, so you get decks that are done based off contradictory meanings. Believe me I had a few of those, and they went out the door.
IE: 7 of Swords, Waite even says " The design is uncetain in its importy, because the significations are widely at variance with each other".
and yet everybody keeps painting that image, or something very simular. "Hello people". Stop painting that image and paint what the card really means.
Now there are some of the pip cards that he stayed true to, but the other ones just send mixed messages.
I hope you are understanding what I am trying desperately to say, that in my head. (well, my brain could be miss firing again, wouldn't be anything new.)
In Distinction between the Greater and Lesser Arcana,Waite says:
"...their utter distinction from the Trumps Major is shewn by their conventional character. Let the reader compare them with symbols like the Fool, the High Priestess, the Hierophant, or--almost without exception--with any in the previous sequence, and he will discern my meaning. There is no especial idea connected on the surface with the ordinary court cards... We seem to have passed away utterly from the region of higher meanings illustrated by living pictures. There in was a period, however, when the numbered cards were also pictures, but such devices were sporadic inventions of particular artists and were either conventional designs of the typical or allegorical kind, distinct from what is understood by symbolism, or they were illustrations--shall we say?--of manners, customs and periods. They were, in a word, adornments, and as such they did nothing to raise the significance of the Lesser Arcana to the plane of the Trumps Major; moreover, such variations are exceedingly few. This notwithstanding, there are vague rumours concerning a higher meaning in the minor cards, but nothing has so far transpired, even within the sphere of prudence which belongs to the most occult circles; these, it is true, have certain variants in respect of divinatory values, but I have not heard that in practice they offer better results..."
Waite goes on to say and quite explicitly so:
" I shall recognize at once that the Trumps Major belong to the divine dealings of philosophy, but all that follows to fortune-telling..."
And finally,
"... it is only necessary to add that the difference between the fifty-six Lesser Arcana and ordinary playing-cards is not only essentially slight, because the substitution of Cups for Hearts, and so forth, constitutes an accidental variation, but because the presence of a Knight in each of the four suits was characteristic at one time of many ordinary packs, when this personage usually replaced the Queen. In the rectified Tarot which illustrates the present handbook, all numbered cards of the Lesser Arcana--the Aces only excepted--are furnished with figures or pictures to illustrate-but without exhausting--the divinatory meanings attached thereto..."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/pkt/pkt0301.htm
Thanks for posting this.
You know I didn't realise until you said this how much I love these cards. I love the Victorian background, the magic circle, the whiff of Empire and all the knowledge that brought from far off lands.
You have to remember that the RWS is the first deck to have illustrated pips. Other decks really concentrated on the Majors (I'm talking about Golden Dawn decks esp Mathers). If the RWS does indeed base the minors on Cartomancy and other elements such as astrology, then it's even more wonderful as that has a long history. I think the common thread that binds the minors is astrology.
So for example, The Queen of Swords which may (or may not) correspond to the Queen of Spades is a Widow. That is a traditional Cartomancy meaning. She is therefore drawn with a widow's bracelet. She also has symbols of Air in the butterflies etc and in astrology is Libra/Virgo (I think).
So Waite makes it very clear that he sees a massive difference between the Majors and Minors and no particular philosophical or higher meaning. He attributes common attributions, places a Knight in and illustrates them. The Minors are not Trumps and should not be looked upon with the same significance.
I have the PCSC deck I love it, it just has that feel about, that why I kept this deck, and rid of all the other RWS decks.
I also agree that there is a difference that he made with the Majors and Minor, this is why I have only been focusing on the minor arcana and not the Majors. I get the Majors, and understand where he is coming from with them. It was the Minors that were driving me nuts.
"The Minors are not Trumps and should not be looked upon with the same significance".
hmmm, Then why do readers, using older deck attach the pips to the Majors for interpretation? This is just a thought, that passed through my head.