Lee
I'm reluctant to disagree in any way with Mary, whose scholarship in these matters is formidable and inspirational.
But I do think it's reasonable to point out that saying that Waite correlated the suits with the Grail symbols (which is clearly true) is not the same thing as saying that Waite conceived of the RWS pip cards as telling stories in sequence, and one doesn't necessarily follow from the other.
Facts suggesting that the pip suits weren't conceived of as story sequences are:
1) Waite does not ever say, suggest, or even hint that the cards are connected into stories. (I admit I haven't gone through PKT word for word looking for this, so I'm happy to be corrected.) One would think that if he had gone through the immense amount of work to create image sequences which illustrated four stories and which at the same time illustrated cartomantic meanings and which at the same time illustrated or suggested GD correlations, he would have at least hinted at that dimension.
2) If the suits were supposed to be sequences of scenes from stories, one would have thought that Smith would have illustrated them that way, i.e. made it clear that the same characters appear from one card to the other. The figures are ambiguous enough that they could be the same people, but one would think she would have made it extra clear by showing people with identifiably the same faces, hairstyles, clothes, etc. And she clearly did not.
Connecting the pip cards into stories is something which seems obvious to us, after decades of working and living with the cards, but it seems to me perfectly plausible that such a thing may not have even occurred to Waite. At the time, using Sola-Busca-like illustrations for the pips would in itself have been quite a novelty. While film and comic strips existed at that time, they were not as much a part of the public consciousness as they are now. And the fact that Waite may have sprinkled some Masonic and Arthurian symbology among the Minors also doesn't necessarily mean that he designed the pips to show story sequences.
Regarding the King of Cup's fish necklace, it may indeed have been meant to suggest the Fisher King, but might it not also be for the same reason that Smith drew fish on each of the other Cups courts as well? In other words, the Fisher King symbology isn't necessary to explain the presence of the fish necklace, so I don't know if we can take it for granted that that's what Waite meant.
Several years ago I read Mary's article on this subject in one of the Llewellyn tarot annuals. Unfortunately that book is now in another state so I can't refer to it, but I remember being unconvinced by her card-by-card explanation of the story sequences. To me, they seemed to work out as one would expect any correlation between tarot and another story or symbol sequence would work out -- a few cards seem startlingly apropos, a few cards don't seem to fit at all, and most of the cards could sort of be interpreted that way if one squints one-eyed at them and does a little shoe-horning.
I have no agenda or bias on this question -- I actually think it would be kind of nifty if it could be shown definitively that Waite meant to illustrate story sequences. I just don't think the evidence is there yet to elevate it from a theory to a probability. I'd be happy to look at new evidence or new interpretations, though.
But I do think it's reasonable to point out that saying that Waite correlated the suits with the Grail symbols (which is clearly true) is not the same thing as saying that Waite conceived of the RWS pip cards as telling stories in sequence, and one doesn't necessarily follow from the other.
Facts suggesting that the pip suits weren't conceived of as story sequences are:
1) Waite does not ever say, suggest, or even hint that the cards are connected into stories. (I admit I haven't gone through PKT word for word looking for this, so I'm happy to be corrected.) One would think that if he had gone through the immense amount of work to create image sequences which illustrated four stories and which at the same time illustrated cartomantic meanings and which at the same time illustrated or suggested GD correlations, he would have at least hinted at that dimension.
2) If the suits were supposed to be sequences of scenes from stories, one would have thought that Smith would have illustrated them that way, i.e. made it clear that the same characters appear from one card to the other. The figures are ambiguous enough that they could be the same people, but one would think she would have made it extra clear by showing people with identifiably the same faces, hairstyles, clothes, etc. And she clearly did not.
Connecting the pip cards into stories is something which seems obvious to us, after decades of working and living with the cards, but it seems to me perfectly plausible that such a thing may not have even occurred to Waite. At the time, using Sola-Busca-like illustrations for the pips would in itself have been quite a novelty. While film and comic strips existed at that time, they were not as much a part of the public consciousness as they are now. And the fact that Waite may have sprinkled some Masonic and Arthurian symbology among the Minors also doesn't necessarily mean that he designed the pips to show story sequences.
Regarding the King of Cup's fish necklace, it may indeed have been meant to suggest the Fisher King, but might it not also be for the same reason that Smith drew fish on each of the other Cups courts as well? In other words, the Fisher King symbology isn't necessary to explain the presence of the fish necklace, so I don't know if we can take it for granted that that's what Waite meant.
Several years ago I read Mary's article on this subject in one of the Llewellyn tarot annuals. Unfortunately that book is now in another state so I can't refer to it, but I remember being unconvinced by her card-by-card explanation of the story sequences. To me, they seemed to work out as one would expect any correlation between tarot and another story or symbol sequence would work out -- a few cards seem startlingly apropos, a few cards don't seem to fit at all, and most of the cards could sort of be interpreted that way if one squints one-eyed at them and does a little shoe-horning.
I have no agenda or bias on this question -- I actually think it would be kind of nifty if it could be shown definitively that Waite meant to illustrate story sequences. I just don't think the evidence is there yet to elevate it from a theory to a probability. I'd be happy to look at new evidence or new interpretations, though.