Agreed. No one's disputing what's said (or wasn't said) in Crowley's works. For my part, they have always seemed vaguely insectile, even from my earliest exposure to the deck.
For me, on first view, yes , I associated the Knight 'wings' as insectile as I am familiar with dragonflies - and also the 'winged helm '
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Hb2h_XAIK...0/ronald_weinland_in_propeller_beanie_hat.png
But with the other similar designs on the courts and minors, I am familiar with planetary squares and kamea from the G.D. and other sources. There is a long thread about that here somewhere - what these designs might represent.
Which I guess always bothered me a bit as I was used to more common animal associations (amphibious[?!]/reptilian for wands, because of the salamander, avian for swords, etc). I've meant to ask about this in the past, but always seemed to forget about it. And in a way, it's comforting to know that there are some others who also see them as insect wings-y.
Well, the bird is THE obvious symbol for air ... strangely enough (just to throw a spanner into the works
) , other knights seem to have bird wings;
http://www.palyne.com/blog.psiche/wp-content/uploads/knight-of-cups-thoth.jpg
I suppose he would look silly with 'water wings'
http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/angel-water-wings.jpg
The knight of swords appears clearly to have 'wings', the princess goes at first glance until one examines the shape and outline closely. The others dont, maybe the Prince, as said above; an idea about wings but not wings as such.
I do not see any semblance of wings no matter how vague in that crystalline structure behind the queen. As for the prince, I wouldn't have much thought of his as wings, had there not been those smaller figures at the bottom to reinforce the impression.
I'm not insisting that they're wings, though. I'm just wondering why they seem like that to me and to some others and if this was a deliberate move on the part of the creators. (And why there's no mention of it in the BoT!
)
Maybe its not mentioned as it wasnt the intention ?
We see what we 'expect' to see
- what we associate with the image ... if I had not a background with magick squares - via G.D. (study) AND Crowley ( Practical - making them for the altars in the Rites of Eleusis ) I might have thought insect wings myself on the Princess and all over the sword cards.
There is so much that is NOT mentioned in the Book of Thoth ( yep ...
) there are tables and charts with no explanation, a variant underlying astrological system with no explanation or indication that it is even understood by the author, illogical argument sequences, and vast areas of assumption ... it would be a pretty loooong book with everything in it.
So ... what do we do ... we go to DuQuette - who cant apparently even copy Crowley right ( the location of the Knights wings) or Wang ... whose equally obvious mistakes and wrong copy have been highlighted a few times here.
But generally its all pretty good ... its only when you get down to small details and intricacies that the mistakes and omissions start to show.