Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!sdd.hp.com!nntp.coast.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-stk-200.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!realtime.net!news From: Jess Karlin Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.tarot,alt.magick,alt.divination Subject: Re: Tarot History (was Re: Pamela Smith Deck (was ....)) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 07:23:42 +0000 Organization: Real/Time Communications Internet customer posting Lines: 153 Message-ID: <31D236FE.59E7@bga.com> References: <4plnie$j5j@crl9.crl.com| <4pmmqd$go9@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4pqk3k$qrp@jobe.shell.portal.com> <4puef3$7pj@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> <4qemvb$gpa@jobe.shell.portal.com> <235304Z23061996@anon.penet.fi> <4qtcpi$5k9@jobe.shell.portal.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: apm0-60.realtime.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RTcode: 7c0869a731210c2111d27ddf X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Xref: shell.portal.com alt.magick.tyagi:9085 alt.tarot:8527 alt.magick:77888 alt.divination:7661 nagasiva wrote: > > kaliyuga > 49960626 AA1 > > (nagasiva engaging a commentary quite possibly in error): > |>Waite is best known for the Smith-Waite tarot, which a woman named > |>Smith, who is too often neglected within tarot studies, Neglected in what way? Kaplan tells her story in the first part of Volume III of his tarot encyclopedia. > |>painted, > |>apparently as inspired or directed by Waite himself. the deck is > |>popularly known as the 'Waite-Rider' (Rider is the original publisher) > |>and became rather important to Rosicrucian and Qabalistic mages such > |>as Paul Foster Case and his own society (B.O.T.A.), as well as > |>becoming an inspiration for the modern occult revival after 1950. > > an627449@anon.penet.fi: > |This last is an interesting assertion. And not one with much merit. Although the deck was certainly the most popular tarot design of this century, being copied by just about everyone (and seldom with much understanding of what its symbolism meant), I don't think it makes much sense to claim that it was this deck that inspired the 'occult revival'. There were some social developments (principally the 60's growth of interest in things metaphysical as opposed to purely material or 'practical') that led to things like tarot and astrology being taken 'seriously' by MANY people. > |...the greatest contribution of Smith's deck is the addition of > |symbology on the minor arcana. I don't know if 'great' is a proper description but it has certainly been influential. However, Smith's use of a narrative illustration in the minors is in no way original, since she copied the idea of it and several of the designs from the Sola-Busca tarocchi deck (c. 1490). > are you then saying that the GD deck (some particular one?) preceded that > of the Smith-Waite and that these latter improved upon the Minor Arcana? There were Golden Dawn decks (not just one) and these were personal copies (although I don't think much personalization was considered appropriate but I suspect it was done nevertheless) made by members based on a core design, which I think was established by Mathers (although the drawings may have been from Mrs. Mathers but I don't recall). Presumably Waite (and Crowley and Case) also would have had a Golden Dawn copy. As for Waite 'improving' or, in his words, 'rectifying', the Golden Dawn designs, that's just nonsense. Waite intentionally corrupted his deck in fact to hide the true attributions of occult symbolism from his customers, AND he was always wanting to move Golden Dawn, and its symbolism, toward 'respectability', meaning Christianity. > I don't know its relationship to the BOTA deck, but it strikes me as > almost identical to the Smith-Waite. Yeah, so that should get your attention, Case obviously based his majors designs on Smith's work, but not in all 'cases'. Case stated, correctly, that Waite had been too concerned about hiding things from the public, and now he, Case, would finally reveal the 'truth'. Of course, that was not entirely true either. > |As far as the major arcana are concerned, we can readily see that the > |Thoth deck moves in a different direction than the original GD deck. The > |BOTA, on the other hand, is quite similiar to the original, and does not > |make the same changes as Smith's deck. See the Death card, in particular, > |of Smith's deck. So you end up with a weird and rather unappealing mixture of designs in Case's presentation. > this is very interesting to me, and as it is late here and I'm lazy, I'll > wait on reviewing the tarot FAQ in favor of merely saying that I had perhaps > mistaken the historical development of the development of popular tarot > structure. perhaps it was something like this (?): > > tarocci (game) > (some original) GD deck > Smith > Case/BOTA Well, that timeline is superficially correct but leaves out a whole lot between tarrochi (game) and 'some original GD deck'. The occult development of tarot began in 1781 (at least the public development of it). > I see the resemblances between these and the Thoth but don't think that > the latter should really be included in the connection we're discussing, > since Lady Frieda Harris' rendering of the Crowley-Harris cogitation > I'd like to know more about the original tarocci game (are the rules > published online somewhere?) There are many sets of tarocchi rules. The best source for tarot game rules AND for a straight-forward discussion of the history of tarot is Michael Dummet's The Game of Tarot. > and this original GD Deck of which you > speak. who created it? Mathers, presumably, based on the 'secret keys' which were supposed to have given a basis for the creation of the order. > how similar was it to the Smith-Waite? Pretty close, but, as mentioned, Waite corrupted some cards and also had a distinctly Christian interpretation of everything. > does > it bear any relation to the rather long history of tarot beyond these > decks? Of course it bears a 'relation' to the history, being part of it. If you mean, does it connect, inviolate, to the original symbolism, not exactly. > is it the same, relatively, as what is now being called the > 'Golden Dawn Tarot' in public stores, etc.? There are several 'Golden Dawn' tarots now. The one 'executed' by Robert Wang, from Regardie's designs, was, I believe, the first of these, and sucks the big one from an aesthetic point of view. I've only briefly glanced at a couple of the others but the point is that there is more to making a tarot deck than just following a blueprint. And lots of people who are striking copies off of Golden Dawn blueprints are considerably missing the mark aesthetically or iconographically. > did Waite use it as a > basis from which to produce his deck? why did his become more popular > as compared to the GD? Cause Waite went peddling his to the general public. Also, I think Smith's designs have an obviously intended popular appeal that has lasted over time. Most people like little stories instead of arcane symbols. > |In what way do you see an important link between the deck created by > |Pamela Smith and the deck designed by Paul Foster Case for BOTA? > maybe it isn't linear so much as that > the GD of which you spoke inspired a great many rivals/alternatives. Both. One could speak of the Waite-Case-Crowley versions of the Golden Dawn paradigm without too much distortion (beyond that intentionally incorporated by the designers of course). (jk)