Waite's inaccuracies?

[Fulgour]

...it's taken me near 30 years to take him seriously...

A.E.Waite had patience too... he waited 25 years to trash this
obviously well-intentioned publication. Aren't we lucky that
he isn't still around to whack the daylights out of all us here?

From: Bibliography of Waite's KEY to the TAROT
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/pkt/pktbib.htm

The Platonist. Vol. II, pp. 126-8.
Published at St. Louis, Mo., U.S.A., 1884-5. Royal 4to.

This periodical, the suspension of which must have been regretted by many admirers of an unselfish and laborious effort, contained one anonymous article on the Tarot by a writer with theosophical tendencies, and considerable pretensions to knowledge. It has, however, by its own evidence, strong titles to negligence, and is indeed a ridiculous performance.

The word Tarot is the Latin Rota = wheel, transposed. The system was invented at a remote period in India, presumably--for the writer is vague--about B.C. 300. The Fool represents primordial chaos. The Tarot is now used by Rosicrucian adepts, but in spite of the inference that it may have come down to them from their German progenitors in the early seventeenth century, and notwithstanding the source in India, the twenty-two keys were pictured on the walls of Egyptian temples dedicated to the mysteries of initiation.

Some of this rubbish is derived from P. Christian, but the following statement is peculiar, I think, to the writer: "It is known to adepts that there should be twenty-two esoteric keys, which would make the total number up to 100." Persons who reach a certain stage of lucidity have only to provide blank pasteboards of the required number and the missing designs will be furnished by superior intelligences.

Meanwhile, America is still awaiting the fulfilment of the concluding forecast, that some few will ere long have so far developed in that country "as to be able to read perfectly... in that perfect and divine sybilline work, the Taro." Perhaps the cards which accompany the present volume will give the opportunity and the impulse!

~Grand Orient aka A.E.Waite 1910

 

[Teheuti]

A.E.Waite had patience too... he waited 25 years to trash this obviously well-intentioned publication. <snip>
The Platonist. Vol. II, pp. 126-8. Published at St. Louis, Mo., U.S.A., 1884-5. Royal 4to.

He was trashing the article - not the magazine. Have you read this article? I believe it was the one written by T. H. Burgoyne (Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor) taking most of its card descriptions and tarot myth (without acknowledgement) directly from Paul Christian.

Here's one quote: "They made the symbolical hieroglyphics of each tablet or card correspond in its symbolicism [sic] to the esoteric significance and meaning of one page or leaf of the sacred book of Enoch, the perfect man, who occupies the point of Equilibrium in the celestial sphere. . . . Tradition says that the original book consisted of detached plates or leaves of fine gold, whereon were engraven its mysteries,—which remind us of the "Terraphim," or golden images of Laban."

Waite was pretty scathing with those who made up false histories for the Tarot as he was trying hard to set the record straight historically - that the cards came from early Renaissance Italy. Ironically, we are still, almost 100 years later, trying to do the same thing.

Mary

 

[RViewer]

The Big Picture.

Waite was pretty scathing with those who made up false histories for the Tarot as he was trying hard to set the record straight historically - that the cards came from early Renaissance Italy. Ironically, we are still, almost 100 years later, trying to do the same thing.

Mary

If this is so obviously the one true origin of the "History of the Tarot" then why do so very many of the symbols found in the cards correspond so closely to images carved in stone dating clear back to Sumeria?

The mysteries are called ancient for I reason I believe. What we assume to be from one era is often only what has been rediscovered in another.

And there is nothing new under the sun....

 

[james the younger]

the waite deck

I'm new and would be interested in discussing this deck with some people perhaps somewhat closer to my age,53,30,40/.I have been researching Pamela and her life and some very interesting things that she put into this deck.It gets more and more so with each new discovery I make.So far I have found around 65 hidden images Pam slipped in on Waite,and are there for all to see who (want )to see.Ye have ears,but do not hear.Ye have eyes,but do not see.Pam signed some cards more than once.She also signed the Fool.Her dearest friend throughout her life was a woman named Julia whom she called julie.Julies name appears on the Hanged Man's tunic very plainly.I believe among other things,that she and julie had quite a fun time at Waite's expense while pamela designed the deck for him.As I've said before,Pam did not like Waite much at all and antgonised him at every opportunity IN the deck.I like Pam as if she were still alive.She truly was indeed a PIXIE,as Ellen Terry,her actress friend nicknamed her.She posessed a beautiful soul and though perhaps small in stature,she stood very tall in spirit.Some of the hidden images are SO visible that of course you might not see them.Think the elephant on the PINHEAD.As on the Tower the lighting bolt is not just a bolt of lightning,but very clearly again,avery large W.The list goes on.

 

[Lee]

Hi James,

I'm 44, so I guess I fall within your requested age range.

I've looked at some of the things you mention, on Tarotbear's posting of the scans in another thread (thanks Tarotbear!). I must say that personally I don't find them terribly convincing, especially the "Julie" which supposedly appears in the shading lines of some of the cards. It seems to me that one could probably see anything in these lines if one squinted long enough. Or perhaps the reason I can't see it is because it's so visible.

Since you've been researching Pamela, would you mind telling us your source for the information that Pamela didn't like Waite or that there was any kind of tension between them at the time she was drawing the deck? I would be very interested in reading it.

-- Lee

 

[Teheuti]

If this is so obviously the one true origin of the "History of the Tarot" then why do so very many of the symbols found in the cards correspond so closely to images carved in stone dating clear back to Sumeria?

Wow - that's really exciting. Could you share some of these images with us? Are you saying that there is evidence that tarot comes from Sumeria?

There is no question that the images on the tarot are much older than the cards themselves. How do you define tarot? Are you using the same definition as Waite? Otherwise you are talking about apples and oranges.

Mary

 

[Teheuti]

So far I have found around 65 hidden images Pam slipped in on Waite.

Would love to see a list of these.

Julies name appears on the Hanged Man's tunic very plainly.

It could also be a Tllllc . Tell us more about Julie/Julia. What was her last name? Is there any evidence for her existence outside of the hidden images on the cards?

Pam did not like Waite much at all and antgonised him at every opportunity

What evidence is there for this? Why did she belong to his Rectified Rite and do the deck with him if she was so antagonistic? Did he have some nefarious hold over her?

She posessed a beautiful soul

I've gotten that sense about her, too.

As on the Tower the lighting bolt is not just a bolt of lightning,but very clearly again,avery large W.

Yes - for Waite? Actually it's in the shape of the lightning path down the Tree of Life.

Mary

 

[Lee]

James, I notice in this thread:

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=52589&page=1&pp=10

You were asked for any sources for the supposed antagonism between Pamela and Arthur, but you never answered. I really would like to know what leads you to this conclusion.

-- Lee

 

[RViewer]

Only Sharing.

Wow - that's really exciting. Could you share some of these images with us? Are you saying that there is evidence that tarot comes from Sumeria?

There is no question that the images on the tarot are much older than the cards themselves. How do you define tarot? Are you using the same definition as Waite? Otherwise you are talking about apples and oranges.

Mary

Well how could I resist such a warm and open invitation to share thoughts with one of my favorite authors?

There is no doubt in my mind that you have done your homework when it comes to tarot. I have no delusions that I will share anything with you that you have not already drawn your own conclusions about. But much like you encourage in your books (and I have read that you do in your classes) I try my best to listen to the inner-self. The author that I read seems to be at odds with the author that I have thus far spoken with. I wish that I did not seem to rub you the wrong way.

Now, as to images why not take the very card I was told in another thread I was too of topic to discuss? Lets see if anyone can read my mind as to what card I believe this image corresponds to?

http://img350.imageshack.us/img350/3636/inalion4wd.jpg

Here are 2 more that to me are not as apples and oranges as one might think:

http://img350.imageshack.us/img350/4547/ishtartower4yu.jpg

http://img350.imageshack.us/img350/5153/sevenveils8zc.jpg
Yes I am aware these last 2 are not from Sumeria.

As to my definition matching Waite’s or not, I do not see why this has any bearing on what we are discussing. The overall topic is how A.W. was inaccurate and the issue I was speaking to is that the tarot is obviously not just a random set of cards that were created only for divination or amusement. The images correspond to something older, and it is therefore useful to look deeper as to why these images are still around. In fact they seem to be gaining more popularity as we speak. Would it not be useful to know why these images were chosen and not just fresh random or new symbols?

 

[Teheuti]

Lets see if anyone can read my mind as to what card I believe this image corresponds to?
http://img350.imageshack.us/img350/3636/inalion4wd.jpg

Are you giving out awards? Strength.

I don't think that anyone suggests that the 15th c. tarot deck creators originated the pictorial themes expressed in the Major Arcana. In fact, many people (me included) consider them archetypal (in Jung's sense of the word). This means that they are bound to appear in some variation in myths and images around the world.

As to my definition matching Waite’s or not, I do not see why this has any bearing on what we are discussing.

If tarot is a recognizable set of 22 picture cards married to some variation on a playing card deck (4 suits numbered 1-10 and a set of court cards), then a single image does not constitute a pre-existing tarot deck - but rather suggests the universality of the pictorial themes. Personally, I don't see these as constituting the same thing.

The overall topic is how A.W. was inaccurate and the issue I was speaking to is that the tarot is obviously not just a random set of cards that were created only for divination or amusement. The images correspond to something older, and it is therefore useful to look deeper as to why these images are still around. In fact they seem to be gaining more popularity as we speak. Would it not be useful to know why these images were chosen and not just fresh random or new symbols?

I agree entirely that tarot is not just a random set - although I can't prove definitively that that was the intention in the mind of the creator of the deck in that other images could have been included and weren't.

Do you have any evidence of the existence of a whole set or, even a major part of it, prior to 1400? Do you have any evidence that it was created for divination?

You are the one who is questioning Waite's accuracy here, so you need to be accurate in return. Specifically, what statement are you questioning? Where did Waite said tarot was a random set of cards created only for divination or amusement? Where does he deny that the images correspond to something older? In fact, all his various books on the "Secret Tradition" are about how there are older and less-old (alchemy, for instance) correspondences.

Why would Waite be interested in "fresh random and new symbols" when his whole focus is on the continuation of a secret tradition through the ages?

Anyway - back to square one: Specifically what are you claiming that Waite said or included in the deck that was inaccurate?

Mary