Why Scenic Minors?

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.
 

Zephyros

Were the Grail legends argued to be the only inspiration, I would agree with you. However, it can be seen that the deck has been strongly influenced by Book T, and follows it in spirit if not in the actual instructions given in it. Book T, of course, is the GD's "Tarot bible" and is based on their version of the Tree of Life. The Tree is in itself a form of story, or at least a framework on which to pin the progression of an idea from abstraction to fruition. So flexible is it, that practically any story can be made to fit it, provided you are willing, at times, to be flexible yourself with how this is done (in the same manner that the GD changed the original Tree to suit their own purposes). Add to that the ready-made initiatory aspect of the Grail legends, which no doubt would have met with Waite's approval due to his own background and his time at the GD, and it becomes, to me, even more compelling.

I know that my disclaimer has shot me in the leg, as it leaves the matter open to any interpretation, but I don't really have a lot to go on. :) I know almost nothing about the progression of the stories, if there is indeed any, so I don't have anything with which to support the theory other than that it feels right.
 

Richard

.......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.
FWIW, I have that Lewellyn annual containing Mary's article (somewhere here in the house), and my impression is pretty much the same as yours. I was fascinated with the idea at first, since I have been interested in the Grail literature and the Hiram legend for quite a while, but on further reflection I'm not so gung ho. It's interesting, but I'm not convinced of its validity.

.
 

Kingdubrock

I have enjoyed this thread. I dont know if this is interesting to anyone but I was doing a reading using the Dodal Marseille deck which contained the 9 of swords. In this deck there is a single sword encased in a mandorla (vesica pisces) shape made up of the traditionally curved swords which connect at the top and bottom in a weave-like formation. The blade of the sword is red and it kind of weaves through or penetrates through the top weave and emerges from the top of the shape with little root-like lines sprouting from it. (The other sword cards in the same deck do not depict this change in the sword). At the sides of the mandorla there are these clasp-like thingies that look a little like stairs which seem to draw the eye into the shape while holding it open.
Now, when using this deck i dont use any form of pre-defined card meanings (i dont actually know from memory what any pictorial deck ascribes to any minor really) and just get impressions from the images themselves, in the context of the surrounding cards. So in this case it made sense to see the central sword as having connotations of being drawn into a situation and both a) being changed by undergoing a process and b) successfully emerging from or penetrating a barrier like a sprout emerging as a plant through a rock

I compared it to the same card in the Noblet tarot and in this case the red sword emerged through the weave with a yellow tip. Huh. Neat.

Out of curiosity I looked at the card in the app for the Alchemical tarot from R. Place and it showed some poor fellow cowering under a bunch of swords hanging above him, not noticing the strings which suspended the swords or that the way ahead is actually clear. He claims to base his minors on PCS's images (or at least the assigned meanings) with some alchemical touch ups.

Is this essentially the same message as I perceived in the Marseille decks? It can be, certainly, but what i perceived to be intrinsically positive in the Marseille card has overtly threatening and fearful, confused imagery in the Alchemical card. Yet transformed emergence is explicit in the former and kind of implied in the latter if one goes a step beyond the first impression and notices the clear path out which the figure in the card does not.

Lastly I looked at the RWS deck the card shows someone weeping in bed with 9 swords in the background, to which i assume a primarily negative meaning would be attributed (although I dont know). Its possible that this negative circumstance or experience could be offset by another card (almost any other card) which would suggest a more positive emergence though.

So from all of this i was left with the sense that the meaning ascribed to the card by Waite adheres to an unambiguous system of sorts or at least is intended to unambiguously convey sadness or strife. Whereas in the Marseille deck, there is also a less direct yet clear intention as well, but with somewhat more optimistic overtones. My own opinion is that it harmonized a little more closely with the Alchemical deck and could indicate an alchemically-influenced hermeneutic at work in the Marseille as well, which imo is not a stretch. Raven and LRichard and possibly others spoke to an astrological interpretation or source. So lets go with this for a moment. This in turn could be read independently from or in consort with alchemical philosophy. Perhaps if we go strictly with the astrological (or whatever system Waite used), the "alchemical transformation" sensibility could be seen as an overlay in use by the early Marseille designers. If we take it as shown in the Marseille, we can still detect the astrological (or other) significance (ie: struggle, barrier etc) as being derived from a common source.

All speculation on my part of course. Just throwing it out there.
 

ravenest

Opinion is just that - opinion. Does anyone else have any facts? How about circumstantial evidence? I admit that most of the material I've presented is circumstantial. It's just that I've accrued a ton of it!

Regarding the decans. I believe the planetary rulership of the decans had more influence in the GD than the old verbal and pictorial designs. I've examined several sets of them and only find minor congruences with the cards.

Thank you for your work - excellent posts !
 

Abrac

I made an image of the minors that's labeled with the "Lord of" titles from Book-T. Make of it what you will.

Scenic Minors

Some aren't as obvious as others, but so many are I think it's safe to say Waite was using Book-T as a guide to no small extent. But Waite's approach to the tarot was vastly different from that of the GD. In his autobiography he says the GD didn't have a "deep understanding" of tarot cards.

Kapaln quotes Waite's Shadows of Life and Thought in his Encyclopedia, Vol.3:

"I am not of course intimating that the Golden Dawn had any deep understanding by inheritance of Tarot Cards; but, if I may so say, it was getting to know under my auspices that their Symbols -- or some at least among them -- were gates which opened on realms of vision beyond occult dreams."

When the Waite-Smith tarot was being conceived and executed, Waite had already been the head of the Isis-Urania temple of the GD for several years, so it wouldn't be out-of-place for him to use Book-T as a guide, but it seems apparent his philosophy and approach was different from what it had been before he took over. He saw the majors (or at least I assume by "some at least among them" he's talking about the majors) as "gates which opened on realms of vision beyond occult dreams." It's very possible he was trying, with the scenic minors, to make them more useful as stimuli for mystic visions.

To quote Kaplan again:

"It seemed to some of us in the circle that there was a draughtswoman among us who, under proper guidance, could produce a Tarot with an appeal in the world of art and a suggestion of significance behind the Symbols which would put on them another construction than had ever been dreamed by those who, through many generations, had produced and used them for mere divinatory purposes." (emphasis mine)

Waite was always careful to not say "this or that is what lies behind the symbolism." Even in his comment on the Ace of Cups he says "It is an intimation of that which may lie behind the Lesser Arcana. In his autobiography he says great pains were taken so that no external influences came into play upon Pamela as she created the images, but in the next breath he says she had to be "spoon-fed" on some of the majors. So I think Waite's intention was to not infuse the cards with any concrete meanings, but it was probably inevitable that his beliefs a philosophy would spill into it.
 

ravenest

Speaking as someone that was 'deep' inside a magical order; not many individual members hold exactly the same 'view' or application of the work, or style as the 'Order generally'

The teachings should be a guideline and the order develop as individuals come forth with relevant insights ... or there are branches in it to nurture that process (like the College of Hermetic Philosophers ) .

Unless they degenerate to in fighting and political wars ;)
 

Teheuti

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.
I agree that by itself it is not very significant, but combined with Waite's comment about the Ace of Cups, his statement that the Knight of Swords is Galahad, and the fact that his sole reference (outside of PKT) to the Minors is a long appendix in his book on the Graal (published at the same time as the deck), there seems to be a strong confluence of related factors here. Subtract any one of them from all the others and I agree that each single piece seems random. In fact, to isolate them for disparagement seems disingenuous.

I remember being unconvinced by her [Mary's] 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.
Perfect. I challenge you (or anyone else) to come up with another published text from Waite or anyone else from before 1910 that matches either the Cups or Swords suit as well - involving quotes of similar phrasing, descriptions of imagery, and exact sequence. If any story will do, then this should not be difficult. We can then compare my account with whatever story you find.

BTW, this doesn't discount Waite's use of Book T. And, I believe Smith correlated these disparate materials (Etteilla, Chambers, Book T, and Waite's 'pageants') brilliantly.

My material on the Minor Arcana suits has been greatly expanded since the earlier articles and is now published in two DVDs with lots of visuals and side-by-side quotes. Several prominent Masonic Tarotists seem more convinced than anyone here of the Masonic parallels I made in the Swords and Pentacles suits. It's not possible to repeat my whole work here. But here's a link to my publication: http://globalspiritualstudies.com/p...ources-of-the-rider-waite-smith-minor-arcana/
 

Teheuti

I made an image of the minors that's labeled with the "Lord of" titles from Book-T. Make of it what you will.

Scenic Minors

Some aren't as obvious as others, but so many are I think it's safe to say Waite was using Book-T as a guide to no small extent.
I agree completely. Plus, the Lord-of titles, or an allusion to them, appear in several of Waite's Minor Arcana descriptions. Smith would not have had direct access to the Book T material.
 

Teheuti

1) Waite does not ever say, suggest, or even hint that the cards are connected into stories.
In his appendix on the Minors in the Grail book he says he can devise pageants out of the Minors. He was working on both the Tarot and the Grail book at the same time.

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.
LOL. Waite is well-known for NOT making things obvious! In fact, that's one of the biggest complaints against his writing. And, he did hint at it in the Grail book.

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.
As I tried to make clear, I think Waite was combining lots of materials in the Minors. It's central to his syncretic approach to the Secret Tradition: he argued that the same principles have been repeated over and over again throughout history in a variety of legends and stories - some more clearly than others. He didn't need people to know that the suits illustrated a particular story because it was expressing a principle far deeper than itself. Similarly, it wasn't vital that everyone get all the quotes to mystical literature that he sprinkled throughout PKT (owing to his photographic memory) - although if you follow them back to their sources you'll get a much deeper understanding of his own mystical vision.