Pictorial Key to Tarot (Arthur Waite)--limitations or potential

The book itself has the main text available online.

But various editions add slants or views in terms of the preface, introduction, whether the illustrations are colored, black and white or even included, etc.

My 1959 Pictorial Key to the Tarot from the University Books company (review copy supposedly) has some additional information on it's book jacket 'blurbs' that suggests a limited scope, following the lead of Gertrude Moakley's commentary in her introduction to the text.

If you have/had an edition of the Pictorial Key to the Tarot, you may find it fine , has potential or is limited. Or you may have seen reviews or comments that led you to believe it might be a very good resource and been disappointed.

What does your experience/book/understanding suggest on this topic?

After work or this weekend I'll try to briefly summarize the jacket description.
For me, at least, it suggests a limited application of Pictorial Key that might have been more of a period guide to a set of tarot cards that weren't as heavily Egyptianized as Papus' French La Tarot Divinanitaire (Please excuse spelling--I'll correct this as I look up the references and add the Sacred Texts link to Key to the Tarot later, if someone else does not post these things).

Regards,

Cerulean

Well my copy is printed by US Games, so the cover has much glowing praise of the book and deck I have not found it useful, but I am happy to have it none the less.

I guess it is of value as a point of comparison to me, and not as a reference so much.

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

I have the copy that came as a set with the RWS. To tell the truth, I was expecting 'enlightenment' about the deck and only found confusing lexicon, which detracted from the work, IMHO.

tarotbear said:

I have the copy that came as a set with the RWS. To tell the truth, I was expecting 'enlightenment' about the deck and only found confusing lexicon, which detracted from the work, IMHO.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. I got it in a set with the universal waite but it doesn't really help at all.

Waite should have written it as a reverse translation
and published it in French, then we might still imagine
it held the deepest secrets of all mysterious wisdom.

One of the many virtues of Robert Place's new book is that he cites the discrepancies and demonstrates the conflicts between what Arthur describes and what Pamela actually painted. Apparently Waite didn't even examine the deck closely before writing the book. When will folks catch on to the fact that Waite was a hack writer no more reliable than those who churn out how-to-read-tarot books today?

fyreflye said:

One of the many virtues of Robert Place's new book is that he cites the discrepancies and demonstrates the conflicts between what Arthur describes and what Pamela actually painted. Apparently Waite didn't even examine the deck closely before writing the book. When will folks catch on to the fact that Waite was a hack writer no more reliable than those who churn out how-to-read-tarot books today?

Click to expand...

AE waites pictoral key book is a bit lacking...but then it is old.....Waite was a self educated man......his writings are verbose.....but he did know his stuff...was he perfect..ha of course not......did he advocate humping quadrupeds like some other well known occultists? ...no....

Shrug it was a product of its time......

WG Gray makes perhaps the most exhaustive exploration of all the symbols (and other things) in this deck..in the book "the talking tree"

for a self educated man...AE Waite did remarkably well......imo.....

Cerulean said:

My 1959 Pictorial Key to the Tarot from the University Books company (review copy supposedly) has some additional information on it's book jacket 'blurbs' that suggests a limited scope, following the lead of Gertrude Moakley's commentary in her introduction to the text.

Click to expand...

I also have this edition. One thing the noted tarot scholar Gertrude Moakley points out in her Introduction is that for both Waite and Pamela Colman Smith, their work on the Tarot deck seemed "a mere trifle" or an "avocation" (whatever that means) compared to their more ambitious projects. Neither of them would have expected that this deck would outlast all their other works - anymore than their contemporary Arthur Conan Doyle wished to be remembered for Sherlock Holmes rather than his historical novels. So if you find the book a bit shallow and unsatisfying, maybe that's not too surprising?

BTW, whatever happened to PCS's original paintings?

If there is a related discussion thread, I'll pm links...

...but sorry, this thread is in the Tarot Books and Media section and on the Pictorial Key to the Tarot book, so I should pm you on any links. I'm trying to learn to really stay on topic in special forums.

Thank you for your opinion on the book.

Best regards,

Cerulean

I have a Causeway Books edition from 1972, which has the color card illustrations in it.

I say that Waite was simply writing in a style that was prevalent at the time.

I find it pretty enjoyable, but then I like writing from the 18 and early 19 hundreds.

The fact that the descriptions are a little different than the way the cards are doesn't really bother me that much, I look to the spirit, rather than the letter of the book.

Of course, I'm pretty partial to Waite, so I'm not completely unbiased.