RwS : Strategic Stickers

[wizzle]

I'd like to say that I find the use of removable stickers argues for a lack of true committment to a Pixie-is-so-heavenly (hereinafter to be known as PISH) point of view. To me, stickers, especially removable ones, smack of a sneaking respect for the Golden Dawn/Waite influence on the RWS deck. A true PISH desciple would surely alter the deck in a permanent way. Those gold and silver craft pens could add quite a nice touch, although they are not authentic PISH, imo.

However, in doing away with GD symbolism, a few problems might arise. Remember Pixie only made it into the most outter of the GD grades. So we need to make sure no GD inner circle drivel is allowed to intrude on her hallowed outter circle status because any latent inner circle stuff could be used by the anti-PISH to prop up silly theories about Waite's role in the development of the deck. Take for example the Fool. Obvious deletions need to include:

Soft yellow boots - whose color is a symbol for certain GD grades. The soft quality of the boot is surely based on the slippers worn for GD ceremonies. I suggest replacement with something hob-nailed which is much better for hiking in the mountains anyway. Or, alternatively, he could be discalced, putting him in line with the Visconti Fool AND reflecting Pixie's religious affiliation at the same time.

8 pointed star on tunic - I forgot what this means but it's definetly GD esoteric.

Red feather - which is the Feather of Maat and right in line with GD's fascination for all things Egyptian. This must certainly go.

The white undertunic - white clothing was used extensively by the GD in ceremonies.

It will be work to alter the entire deck. But it is noble work and in a good cause.

[size=+1]PISH rules!!![/size]

 

[kwaw]

~ but why so?
Waite never looked farther than the few shillings he nabbed
and when he finally drank himself to death nobody cared.

Well I never knew that, drank himself to death at the age of 85. Kwaw raises his glass, cheers old man, see you later.

A.E.Waite
October 2, 1857 - May 19, 1943
'Drank himself to death' [but it took a while].

Making up fake Shakespeare quotes and now faking biographies? Are you just fooling with us?

Cheers [hic]
Kwaw

 

[wizzle]

PISH continued

My fellow PISH initiates have very properly reminded me that, while GD symbolism is a PISH heresy, Masonic symbolism is an anathema. Whatever else is said of the Great Lady Pixie, she was for sure not a man and therefore far removed from the Masons of the 19th century.

It behoves us, her true deciples, to expunge Masonic symbolism immediately!!! I get heart palpitations just THINKING about this evil. This necessitates, at a minimum

- taking off the B & J in the High Priestess
- coloring over the black and white tiling on the Hierophant

7th degree PISH handshake to those of you who set me straight.

 

[Lee]

For lots more symbols that would have to be deleted or stickered over, see this fascinating website:

http://www.tarotpassages.com/old_moonstruck/oneill/

-- Lee

 

[jmd]

Perhaps, for those who have not read it, it may be worth noting what Waite says about the deck itself, towards the end of The Great Symbols of the Tarot (an article published in 1926):

If anyone feels drawn in these days to the consideration of Tarot symbolism they will do well to select the Trumps Major produced under my supervision by Miss Pamela Coleman Smith​

In any case, to refer to the deck as the Pamela Colman Smith deck, given that she only ever made one, clearly identifies which deck Fulgour is referring to. I personally, of course, consider the Waite as important in the overall design as Colman Smith, acknowledging the conceptual influx from Waite, and the artistic alteration and creation as Colman Smith's.

As to Masonic stuff.... perhaps, like Frieda Harris and numerous theosophical-oriented women, Colman Smith was a Freemason.

 

[northsea]

I know of some religious folks who'd appreciate strategic stickers on the Devil, the Star, the World... the whole deck actually.

 

[Fulgour]

In any case...

Well we have the stamp of approval now, so everybody
can say whatever they want about me. Lay it on boys!

 

[Lee]

Fulgour, this is not personal. For the most part I enjoy reading your posts and I think you make a valuable contribution to the forum.

It wouldn't be a problem if you were to say, "I don't like Waite," or "I don't like Waite's influences or GD influences on the RWS," or "I choose to disregard Waite or GD influences in the RWS," or even "I choose to call it the Pamela Colman Smith deck because that's the way I like to think of it."

The problem comes when you make statements of fact like the ones you've made, I won't repeat them all again. When you make outlandish statements of fact, you shouldn't be surprised when people challenge the statements and ask for some kind of evidence or some reason to believe your theory. So far, all you've really given us is, in a nutshell, you don't like Waite and so therefore he couldn't have possibly initiated and directed the production of the RWS deck. I've suggested several times that it's possible that Waite was in some ways an unlikeable person and yet still told the truth about his involvement in the deck, but I think this is a message you really don't want to hear.

You have made some factual arguments, but for the most part they are so contrary to what we know about those people and those times (for example the history of the Golden Dawn and Book T) that it's impossible to take them seriously. In fact I have wondered, as kwaw has, whether you yourself are serious when you make some of these statements, or whether you're just having fun with us, since you make them and then when asked for evidence or when presented with contrary evidence, you run away and don't answer.

I don't want you to feel as if I'm picking on you. First of all, I think this is an interesting and healthy discussion, and I appreciate you for starting it. I think it's good sometimes to challenge the "accepted facts" and not just take them for granted. I do admit that the available evidence is scanty and may sometimes be capable of being interpreted in different ways. For example, while I believe that Smith's comment that she had just completed a very big job for very little cash indicates that she was paid as work-for-hire, I admit that it's possible that I'm wrong. It is also true (as far as I know) that the only direct evidence for Waite's involvement are his own statements, and this is a less than desirable state of affairs, since historians prefer to confirm events with the testimony of more than one person.

In this thread, you'll see that I argued in favor of Smith making a greater contribution to the deck than one member supposed. So it's not that I'm trying to tear down Smith.

So, I hope you don't take all this personally, and I hope you keep posting. But if you make factual claims that are contrary to what's commonly believed, I think it's natural and understandable that people will ask you for evidence to back up your claims.

-- Lee

 

[Fulgour]

A.E.Waite October 2, 1857 - May 19, 1943

Arthur Edward Waite
(October 2, 1857 - May 19, 1942)

by Ithel Colquhoun
http://www.kheper.net/topics/Hermeticism/Waite.html

Waite was vague in manner; he would say, 'Do I like mustard,
Vigilate?' and she would have to tell him. (Presumably their
relationship filled some interval of domestic disharmony since
his first wife was still living.)

His autobiographical Shadows of Life and Thought (1938) is not
factually reliable, as might be guessed. His publications range in date
between The Mysteries of Magic (1885) and The Life of Louis-Claude
de Saint-Martin (1939). He poured forth an undending stream of books
on transcendental subjects, edited the work of others (on similar themes)
and persisted with his own verse. This last seems to me all but worthless
- the inelegant adjective 'mushy' comes to mind.

I remember him lecturing on one occasion to the Quest Society;
he was wearing a frock-coat, a high starched collar, and a pale
blue tie held with a ring; above these were the off-white of his
hair and smooth oval face. I don't recall the title of his discourse
but its manner of delivery was so disconnected that its theme
might have been The Hidden Church of the Holy Graal, Devil
Worship in France, or almost anything else.

This was about 1929 and there was current gossip
that he had already taken to the bottle.

 

[Fulgour]

But if you make factual claims that are contrary to what's commonly believed, I think it's natural and understandable that people will ask you for evidence to back up your claims.

There's an old expression ~ turnabout is fair play.
And all I'm doing is taking the same accepted facts
used to raise Waite and diminish Smith and reversing
the import of the arguments conclusions. I say that
Smith was the primary factor in creating her designs
and that she also followed her own lights in doing so.

And if we read Waite's "Key to th Tarot" we can find
where he (in his round about way) steals all the credit
for her work, saying, "I alone am responsible." And then
he blithly changes the subject and offers little more until
1926 and then later again in the 1930s claiming primacy
for the deck. Not as a co-worker, but as a grinning ogre.

The interesting thing here is that arguments against mine
take on a rather high pitched tone, very self-righteous.
What after all is wrong if I state my 'opinion' as a fact if
I have the same data for my opinions as other historians?