"The Key to the Tarot" by A.E. Waite

blackroseivy

I am just reading this now, & it seems to me that his exposure to the Visconti decks is minimal; he doesn't go back further than the Marseille decks, except for the Mantegna, which is quite a different conception from the Tarot. He seems to get some facts wrong as a result; I'll have to go back & quote the book, I guess. For now, I'd just like to see if anyone else saw what I did in the text?
 

Fulgour

From what I've read, the proper chronology is:

1909 The Pamela Colman Smith Tarot published by Rider & Co
1910 The Key to the Tarot by A.E.Waite
1911 The Pictorial Key to the Tarot Arthur Edward Waite

Original illustrations by the artist increased book sales.
 

Lee

I'm fairly certain that there was no publication of the deck itself prior to Waite's book being published. In other words, the first time the deck was published, it included the book. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it.

-- Lee
 

Fulgour

here's a start...

1911 ~ Pictorial Key to the Tarot
Being Fragments of a Secret Tradition
Under the Veil of Divination


Designs by Pamela Colman Smith
 

Fulgour

and as we know:

Pamela Coleman Smith Homepage

"Then of course, there's that Tarot deck...
The deck was completed and up for sale
in December of 1909."
Holly Voley
 

Fulgour

which leaves only...

The Rider-Waite-Smith Tarot Card Copyright FAQ
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/faq.htm

Q. What is the publication data for the Pictorial Key to the Tarot?

A. The Pictorial Key to the Tarot (PKT) was published in 1911 in London by Rider and Sons. This contains black and white line drawings of the RWS Tarot deck. An earlier version of the same book (which didn't have the black and white illustrations, but which was bundled with a RWS deck) titled 'The Key to the Tarot', was published in 1910. Thanks to Holly for pointing this out.
 

Vincent

danubhe said:
I am just reading this now, & it seems to me that his exposure to the Visconti decks is minimal; he doesn't go back further than the Marseille decks, except for the Mantegna, which is quite a different conception from the Tarot. He seems to get some facts wrong as a result; I'll have to go back & quote the book, I guess. For now, I'd just like to see if anyone else saw what I did in the text?

I'm not sure what you saw in the text... what are the errors you are referring to?

Vincent
 

Cerulean

Hello, here's the link to make it easier:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/

A.E. Waite also mentions in the Preface that he was not really writing a historical treatise.

He has an antiquated way of expressing himself, but this is what I gleaned from the Preface:


"...It should be understood that it is not put forward as a contribution to the history of playing cards, about which I know and care nothing; it is a consideration dedicated and addressed to a certain school of occultism, more especially in France, as to the source and centre of all the phantasmagoria which has entered into expression during the last fifty years under the pretence of considering Tarot cards historically. In the second part, I have dealt with the symbolism according to some of its higher aspects, and this also serves to introduce the complete and rectified Tarot, which is available separately, in the form of coloured cards, the designs of which are added to the present text in black and white..."

Hope that helps. My understanding is this was an experiment by Waite...

Regards,

Cerulean
 

Lee

After I posted last night, I checked in the Decker/Dummett book, and indeed, Fulgour is right and I was wrong. The deck itself was published at the end of 1909, and Waite's book was published in 1910.

-- Lee
 

blackroseivy

Errata

I have looked through & found a couple of places that I have issue with (I'm sure there were more, but I can't find them at this point, perhaps later):

1) "The Lovers or Marriage.

"This symbol has undergone many variations, as might be expected from its subject. In the eighteenth-century form, by which it first became known to the world or archaeological research, it is really a card of married life, showing a father and mother, with their child placed between them; and the pagan Cupid above in the act of flying his shaft is, of course, a misapplied emblem..."

I find that the pagan Cupid, as a symbol of the Renaissance, appearing in the earliest cards, as this is the earliest phase of the card, to be the truest to the designers' intent; I'm not sure what he could mean by this.

2) "Temperance.

"A winged female figure, usually regarded as an angel, is pouring liquid from one pitcher to another. The first thing which seems clear on the surface is that the symbol has no especial connection with Temperance..." Again, I can't fathom his meaning, as this is a traditional representation which has in it easily read symbolism to the meaning of Temperance.

Just my take, folks... :)