Levi’s Chariot and Smith’s Chariot Versus Waite’s Chariot

copyright R. M. Place 2005 modified in 2015

72Restored Temple Logo

In my last article we discussed the various minor arcana cards in the Waite-Smith Tarot in which Waite’s description did not match Smith’s art. These discrepancies, however, were not confined to the minor suits alone. As we will see, Waite’s description of the Chariot also differs from Smith’s art. To understand the themes that were incorporated into the Waite-Smith Chariot and why this discrepancy happened, we must first discuss a 19th century occultist who was influential in shaping Waite’s view of the Tarot and who created the model for Smith’s design.

Alphonse-Louis Constant was born in 1810, in Paris, to a poor family. At the age of fifteen, he entered a seminary and by 1835 he became a deacon. Because of romantic inclinations, however, he left the seminary and never became a priest. Constant had a talent for drawing and writing and made a living for himself as an illustrator for magazines and books, by creating paintings for churches, as an actor, a schoolmaster, and various other jobs. He was also interested in social reform and he became a vocal advocate for women’s rights and communism. On two occasions his political views earned him several months in prison.

In 1846, Constant married Noemie Cadiot, a young woman of 18. They had a daughter the next year. Constant’s marriage, however, ended badly. In 1853, Noemie left him and the following year their daughter died. It was at this low point in his life that Constant embraced occultism, a daring move at the time because thanks to the influence of the “enlightenment” in the early to mid 19th century interest in the occult was dying out. To mark his transformation, Constant changed his name to Eliphas Levi, which he felt was the Hebrew equivalent of his first two names, Alphonse-Luis. No doubt, most readers will be familiar with his work by his occult name.

The newly born magus, Levi, applied the same daring and individuality, the qualities that had earned him a place in prison for his political views, to his new field of interest. He considered High Magic, as he called it, a mystical path to enlightenment. The key ingredients in Levi’s magical synthesis were Kabbalah, Hermeticism, alchemy, Pythagorean number symbolism, astrology, ceremonial magic, and especially Tarot. He never wrote a book on any of these subjects alone because he believed that all of these should be combined in one interconnected doctrine, a type of occult science that was designed to channel psychic energy toward the goal of self-mastery and the development of one’s will.

In 1854 Levi published his first book under his new name, The Doctrine of High Magic. The following year he completed a second volume entitled The Ritual of High Magic. They were later combined together as one book, and in 1896, when Waite translated the two volumes into English. It was published by Rider under the title Transcendental Magic.

The central component of Levi’s synthesis was his correlation between the twenty-two cards in the Tarot’s fifth suit, which he called keys, and the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. He started with trump one, the Magician, which he aligned with the first letter, aleph, and proceeding in order to the World, which he aligned with the last letter, tau. Of course this only makes use of 21 keys. To make the correlation work he placed the unnumbered Fool in the penultimate position just before the World and aligned him with the next-to-the-last letter shin. This is the reason why Waite placed the Fool in this same position in his Pictorial Key to the Tarot, which was written to accompany the Waite-Smith deck. In the Golden Dawn system, the Fool would have been the first card and therefore aligned with aleph.

Each of the Hebrew letters was originally a picture of an object or animal, something like a hieroglyph, and the name of each letter retains this meaning. For example, aleph means ox and was originally a stylized picture of an ox head. In the Kabbalah, each letter was also assigned a correlation with a planet, a constellation, or an element, and a path on the Kabbalistic symbol for the journey toward enlightenment called the Tree of life. Both of Levi’s books contain twenty-two chapters and each chapter presents a correlation of subjects freely associated with the appropriate number, Hebrew letter, pictorial symbol, celestial or elemental association, or Tarot key.

Chapter seven in The Doctrine of High Magic, which became volume one of Transcendental Magic, is, of course, linked with the Tarot’s Chariot, the seventh key if we are following the Tarot of Marseilles order as Levi was. The seventh Hebrew letter is zain, which means sword. Therefore, the title of the chapter is “The Fiery Sword.” Because Levi followed the correlations of the 17th century Christian Kabbalists, Kircher, instead of the more traditional Jewish associations, he equates zain with Principalities, the third of the nine orders of angels found in the medieval Christian world-view, instead of the constellation Gemini as recommended in Jewish texts such as the Sepher Yetzirah. He also associates it with the seventh sepiroth in the Kabalistic Tree of Life, which he called Conquest. In this chapter he treats us to a description of the Chariot key in which he projects numerous associations of his magical synthesis onto the traditional image.

“(The septenary is) represented in the Tarot by a crowned warrior, who bears a triangle on his cuirass (breastplate) and is posed upon a cube, to which two sphinxes are harnessed, straining in opposite directions, while their heads are turned the same way. This warrior is armed with a fiery sword and holds in his left hand a scepter surmounted by a triangle and a sphere. The cube is the Philosophical Stone; the sphinxes are the forces of the Great Agent, corresponding to Jakin and Boaz, the two pillars of the Temple (of Solomon); the cuirass is the knowledge of Divine Things, which renders a wise man invulnerable to human assaults; the scepter is the Magic Wand; the fiery sword is the symbol of victory over the deadly sins, seven in number like the virtues, the conceptions of both being typified by the ancients under the figures of the seven planets then known. “

(Page 80; Levi, Eliphas; translated by Waite, A. E.; Transcendental Magic; Samuel Weiser, New York: 1970)

It is surprising that, although Levi was an artist, he did not design his own version of the Tarot deck, one that would illustrate his theories. It is believed that he was working on such a deck but never completed it. He did, however, complete the illustration for one card, The Chariot, which he included in chapter 22 of the second volume of his book. Chapter 22 is entitled The Book of Hermes and focuses on Levi’s theories concerning the 22 Tarot keys.

Levi's Chariot

Levi’s Chariot

We can see that Levi’s illustration, although more realistic in style, is firmly based on the Tarot of Marseilles model. However, he reads into what is included in the Marseilles image and, for the most part, makes the details conform to his fantasies. His description included next to the illustration in Volume Two has been altered form the one presented in Volume One.

Jean Dodal Chariot 1701

Jean Dodal Chariot 1701

“Hieroglyph, a Cubic Chariot, with four pillars and an azure and starry drapery. In the chariot, between the four pillars, a victor, crowned with a circle, adorned with three radiant golden pentagrams. Upon his breast are three superposed squares, on his shoulder the Urim and Thummim of the sovereign sacrificer, represented by the two crescents of the moon in Gedulah and Geburah; in his hand is a scepter surmounted by a globe, square and triangle: his attitude is proud and tranquil. A double sphinx or two sphinxes joined at the haunches are harnessed to the chariot; they are pulling in opposite directions, but are looking the same way. They are respectively black and white. On the square, which forms the fore part of the chariot is the Indian lingam surmounted by the flying sphere of the Egyptians. This hieroglyph, which we reproduce exactly, is perhaps the most beautiful and complete of all those that are comprised in the Clavicle of the Tarot.”

(Page 388; ibid.)

In chapter two of The Pictorial Key to the Tarot, Waite describes each of the trumps, and he has this to say about the Chariot:

“This is represented in some extant codices as being drawn by two sphinxes, and the device is in consonance with the symbolism, but it must not be supposed that such was the original form; the variation was invented to support a particular Hypothesis (Court de Gebelin’s theory that the Tarot originated in ancient Egypt, first published in 1781). In the eighteenth century white horses were yoked to the car.”

(Page 15; Waite, Arthur Edward; The Pictorial Key to the Tarot; Harper & Row, San Francisco: 1971)

Indeed, the earliest cards do depict horses harnessed to the chariot and Levi was depicting sphinxes to add an Egyptian flavor to the image, but he did have a historical model for his card. One of the oldest French Tarots, The Jacques Vieville Tarot, published in Paris circa 1650, has sphinxes on the Chariot. But the typical French Chariot in the most popular form (the Tarot of Marseilles) depicts horses on the Chariot. In the many variations of the Tarot of Marseilles the charioteer is most often holding a scepter toped with a sphere and a triangle, the armor plates covering the charioteer’s shoulders have human faces seen in profile that suggest the image of crescent moons with faces, and the crude depiction of the chariot helps it to appear as a cubic block sitting on the ground with the wheels protruding at angles on either side. But there is no card depicting a flaming sword.

Jacques Vieville Chariot c1650

Jacques Vieville Chariot c1650

Levi’s Charioteer stands with his left hand on his hip and holds a scepter in his right hand as he does in almost ever Marseilles model. His scepter is toped with a sphere and a cone as in the Marseilles cards. I assume that these are the globe and triangle that Levi mentions, but, as for the square, he is probably referring to the disk at the base of the cone. The symbolism of the square and the triangle are important to Levi because they represent the four and the three that comprise the seven, the number of the card.

Notice that the charioteer is not holding a fiery sword, or any other sword, and Levi seems to have dropped this detail considered so important in Volume One. Also in Volume One, he said that the warrior was holding the scepter in his left hand, not his right as he is here. This seems significant, because the only model in the French decks that I have found that has the scepter in the left hand is the Chariot found in the Jacques Vieville Tarot, the one with the sphinxes. When he first described the Chariot in Volume One Levi may have been focusing on the card from this deck (the only known copy is found in the national library in Paris) and when it came time to draw his own version he opted for the more common pose with the scepter in the right hand.

In the oldest French cards, the charioteer’s crown has three fleurs-de-lis, fitting for a French prince, but Levi interprets these as three pentagrams. The angles drawn on his breast plate Levi interpreted as a triangle in Volume One but now he has decided that they are the corners of three squares, again, the three and four symbolism.

On his shoulders, the Charioteer has armor plates hammered into faces. Seen in profile they suggest a waxing moon on our left and a waning moon on our right, notice that Levi has placed the light sphinx on the side with the waxing moon and the dark one with the waning moon. Levi has equated these symbols with the Urim and Thummim, two stones that were attached to the breast plate or worn on the shoulders of the ancient Hebrew priests and used in divination to provide a negative or positive answer to a question, although it is uncertain from the Biblical references which stone is positive and which one is negative. Similarly, in Volume One, Levi compared the sphinxes to the dark and light pillars said to reside in Solomon’s Temple: Boaz and Jachim, which are depicted on the High Priestess in the Waite Smith Tarot.

As we can see on the French cards, the Charioteer has a small shield attached to the front of his vehicle. In most examples, this shield contains the initials of the card maker. Levi added the Indian lingam (upright stone) and yoni (dish) symbols here. These and Tantric symbols for the interaction of the male and female sexual organs. These symbolize the creative essence that Levi sought to channel in his magical practice. Above this, Levi has interpreted the decorative scrollwork found at the top of the shield on some Marseilles cards as the Egyptian solar disk, a symbol of the divine power that Levi hoped to attain once the creative essence had been channeled. All of these symbols are being equated to the cubic stone which was the raw material that the alchemists hoped to turn into the magical elixir that they sought. Levi loved to mix the symbolism of various cultural traditions in this way.

Notice, also, that Levi has added a small sphere below the dish. With this addition the Tantric symbol begins to look like a stylized sword and as the solar disk is a type of flame, perhaps Levi meant this symbol to also represent the fiery sword from Volume One. After all, he did not say it was in the warrior’s hand, only that he was armed with it. If this is true, then we can see that although Levi wishfully projects his symbols into tiny abstract details, all of his observations are sparked by the actual details included in the traditional cards. The only thing totally fabricated by him is the addition of the Hebrew letter zain. The Arabic numeral seven is, of course, replacing the Roman numeral on the traditional cards.

Pamela Colman Smith's Chariot 1909

Pamela Colman Smith’s Chariot 1909

Now let’s look at Pamela Colman Smith’s Chariot. Although different in style and symbolically simplified, it is clearly based on Levi’s design and as Levi was Waite’s inspiration for much of the symbolism in the deck, it is likely that he suggested this model to Smith. However she has allowed herself artistic license in recreating the image. Instead of three stars on the crown she has one. Instead of the suggestion of three squares on the breast she had one complete square. The warrior’s left hand is off his hip, the Tantric symbol has been simplified to a wheel and axil, and the sphinxes are complete and separate and each is looking its own way. Notice that she has changed the dark and light sides so that they no longer coincide with the waxing and waning moons. Also she has more clearly depicted the chariot as the cubic stone, resting on the ground with the charioteer seemingly embedded in it, or as the spirit off the stone rising out of it.

In the Pictorial Key to the Tarot, Waite clearly states that the Chariot design is based on Levi’s model and he has therefore included the sphinxes, although earlier in the book he mistakenly writes that they are not based on a historic model. He also seems to veer away from Levi’s magical associations for the Chariot and sees his as a character of lesser importance. As we said in the beginning, his description does not entirely coincide with Smiths art. Waite begins the section with the following description,

“An erect and princely figure carrying a drawn sword and corresponding, broadly speaking, to the traditional description, which I have given in the first part. On the shoulders of the victorious hero are supposed to be the Urim and Thummim.”

(Page 96; Waite, Arthur Edward; The Pictorial Key to the Tarot; Harper and Row, San Francisco:1971)

Obviously Smith’s figure is true to Levi’s and is only carrying a scepter, not a sword. Waite seemed to be carried away by Levi’s description in the first volume and neglected to notice that the sword is not in the picture. Also, I am not sure what Wait means by “supposed to be.” Is he complaining about Smith for not putting the stones on the shoulders or about Levi for saying the crescents are the stones? If he is complaining about Levi, I believe that Waite has misinterpreted him. When Levi says that the moons are the stones, I believe that he is only suggesting that they are symbolically linked. Unlike Wait, Levi drew his own picture and knew what he was depicting.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Waite’s Misunderstandings of Pamela Colman Smith’s Tarot

72Restored Temple Logo

This article was first published in the Restored Temple of Hermes Newsletter in 2005

copyright Robert M. Place 2005

As I mentioned in my last article on the famous, 1909, Waite-Smith Tarot, I often find in books and articles that Waite is referred to as the designer of the deck. I do not believe that the term designer should be applied to Waite. To design, in its artistic meaning, is to create a visual plan for a work of art or to actually create the work. One cannot design a visual work of art by describing it in words and Waite was not known to possess a talent for visual communication. He hired Smith to design the deck because she did possess the talent. The question then becomes; How involved was Waite in this project?

In his memoirs, Waite specifies that he paid special attention to the direction of three trumps but we cannot assume that he had as much control over all of the cards. It is most probable that for the Major Arcana Waite described the design that he desired for each card, complete with the symbolism it should contain and the significance of each symbol, and, then, he would have stepped out of the picture and let Smith work in her usual spontaneous and intuitive manor. Waite seems to have given Smith more freedom to express her visionary talent in the creation of the fifty-six Minor Arcana, which comprised the bulk of the work. When the art was complete, Waite looked at each piece and wrote a description for his book, The Pictorial Key to the Tarot.

That the art came first and the descriptions second, is demonstrated by the fact that Waite at times misinterprets what he is looking at. As this is not always obvious to Wait’s readers, I am often asked to give examples. Therefore, I will describe some differences between the words and the art here.

Smith Cups01

The most often sited example is the Waite-Smith Ace of Cups. The Waite-Smith Ace of Cups depicts a hand emerging from a cloud holding a chalice. A dove is depositing a host in the chalice and five streams are emerging from the chalice as in a fountain and pouring down to the pond below. In The Pictorial Key to the Tarot, Waite says, “the hand issues from the cloud holding in its palm the cup from which four streams are pouring.”


This is an image that borrows heavily from Christian iconography. The cup seems to be an allegorical image of the Grail. The dove is the standard Christian symbol for the Holy Spirit and the host with the cross is the body of Christ. This Grail is marked with the letter “M” representing Mary. The Grail is being depicted as the body of Mary, which is a vessel receiving the body and blood of Christ. The five streams represent the five wounds, which Christ bled at his crucifixion to bring eternal life to the world. It appears that, Waite would prefer to connect the Grail to the fountain in the center of Eden from which four rivers flowed. He, therefore, saw only four streams.

Smith 9Cups

The next example will be less obvious to most readers. On the Nine of Cups Smith depicts a man sitting boldly in the center facing us with his legs spread and his arms folded. Behind him is a curved table with nine cups. Smith has depicted him as fat with a smug smile. His body gesture is a classic example of defensiveness and defiance, as if he is guarding his cups, which are obviously too many for one person. Of the listed divinatory associations he seems to be illustrating victory, success, and advantage, but Smith has depicted these in an unfavorable light, as something selfish. However, Waite seems unaware of these overtones and describes the character as “a goodly personage” who “has feasted to his heart’s content.”

Smith Swords6

The Six of the Swords depict a man propelling a boat with a pole. In front of him, sit a woman and a child and in front of them six vertical swords seem to be stuck into the boat. The figures have their backs toward us and their heads are bowed as if in sorrow, which is appropriate considering their heavy load of swords and the overall heaviness of the design. The water on the right side of the boat is choppy and turbulent and the water to the left is calm. Waite seems not to notice the differences in the texture of the water. He only says that “the course is smooth” and, in spite of the oversized swords, that “the freight is light.”

Smith Swords11

On Smith’s Page of Swords the trees and clouds are blowing in the wind, birds are flying and the ground seems to be swirling. Everything in the design seems to be moving except the page himself, who stands defiantly in the center on a rise in the earth with his weight on one foot holding his sword aloft and looking over his shoulder.   Waite, however, says that the page is “in the act of swift walking.” Even if his right leg, the one not bearing weight, is preparing to swing forward and allow him to step off the rise, this is not a depiction of walking but of a pause in the walk a moment of stillness in the midst of this commotion.

Smith Pents07

Waite says that the man on the Seven of Pentacles is “a young man leaning on his staff” and looking “intently at seven pentacles attached to a clump of greenery on his right.” Waite has missed a small detail at the bottom of the “staff” that depicts the head of a hoe. The pole is not a staff but the handle of the hoe. With this detail added, the picture now suggests that the man has cultivated the greenery on his right and he is admiring the fruits of his labor. Smith’s inspiration for this card is possibly an 1859 painting by Millet called “Man with a Hoe.”


Smith’s image for the Eight of Pentacles is based on The Sola Busca Tarot’s Six of Coins which represents a metal worker raising the shield like disks that are the suit symbols for that deck. In Smith’s design, the craft worker is sitting at a bench and using a small hammer to chase the stars on the metal pentacles. When he is done, he hangs them from a board possibly to display them for sale. Waite calls him “an artist in stone at his work.” But, the pentacles are too thin for stone, his bench is too light, the pentacles are hung by a cord or a wire that would be difficult to attach to stone and too weak to hold its weight, and they are colored yellow, representing gold. Waite wanted him to be the apprentice to the artist on the Three of Pentacles, who is carving stone. The man is doing production work in contrast to the individually creative work of the artist on the Three of Pentacles.

Smith Pents08

There are other examples in which Waite’s descriptions of Smith’s illustrations seem vague or uncertain but the ones I have listed here are examples where I strongly disagree with Waite’s interpretation of the picture. I feel that these examples demonstrate that Waite was not the author of these designs and that he only commented on them after they were complete. All of these examples are cards from the four minor suits but there are also examples of discrepancies in Waite’s descriptions of the trumps. But because this discussion will be more involved, I will save it for my next article.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

Pamela Colman Smith’s Tarot


copyright Robert M. Place 2005

72dpi Pamela Photo

In 1903 Arthur Edward Waite, with the help of two friends succeeded, in taking control of a faction of the London branch of the famous occult society the Golden Dawn and created a smaller separate group. Under Waite’s direction magical practice and divination were frowned upon. Waite believed that the main purpose of occult practice was spiritual transformation – the search for enlightenment – and this became the focus of the group. One of the members of this group was the gifted artist Pamela Colman Smith.


Smith had studied art in the Pratt Institute in Brooklyn. As an adult, she settled in England and made her living as a set and costume designer at the Lyceum Theater, and as a storyteller, an illustrator, and a fine artist. In the early 1900’s, she regularly showed her work in New York at the gallery owned by the famous photographer Alfred Steiglitz and received critical acclaim, particularly for her visionary drawings. Smith was part of the Symbolist art movement that was prevalent at that time. Symbolists were noted for the sensual beauty of their work and for the portrayal of subjects based on mythology, dreams, and fantasy. As an artist, a psychic, and an occultist, Smith was well suited to this style. She tended to work intuitively and spontaneously. When she was not illustrating a particular legend or story, she would allow herself to fall into a light trance while listening to classical music and draw what she saw. For example, once, while listening to a composition by Beethoven she painted a majestic queen in flowing robes standing on the sea carrying a small ball-like moon in her hands.


Among Smith’s friends were many artists and writers including Bram Stoker, Florence Farr, and William Butler Yeats. It was Yeats who introduced her to the Golden Dawn. Smith impressed her friends and acquaintances with her open hearted friendliness and her child-like innocence. Yet, they recognized a depth behind the innocence, especially in that she had a gift as a psychic as well as an artist. Many believed that she had the ability to directly perceive the spirit world while she worked at her art. John Butler Yeats, the father of her friend William Butler Yeats described her in a letter to his son:


She will go far because she believes in all her ideas… She has the simplicity and naiveté of an old dry as dust savant (but) with a child’s heart.


(Greer, Mary, K.; Women of the Golden Dawn: Rebels and Priestesses; Park Street Press, Rochester, Vermont: 1995; Page 406.)


In 1909 Waite hired Smith to create a new artistic Tarot. He was hoping that with Smith’s talent she would make a deck that was both an appealing work of art and one that clarified the mystical story in the Tarot. Like a Renaissance artwork, it would have body and soul, beauty and meaning. Of course this deck was destined to become the most famous Tarot deck in the world. The deck was originally named just The Tarot, but it became The Rider Waite Tarot in the U.S. and now commonly referred to by scholars – to acknowledge Smith’s role -as The Waite-Smith Tarot.


But, what was Smith’s role? I often fine in books and articles that Waite is referred to as the designer of the deck; sometimes, even in recent books, Smith is not mentioned at all. I do not believe that the term designer should be applied to Waite. One cannot design a visual work of art by describing it in words and Waite possessed no talent for visual communication. He hired Smith to design the deck because she did possess the talent. As an artist and a writer myself I find that people often have trouble separating these roles. On my first two decks, The Alchemical Tarot and The Angels Tarot, I designed and illustrated the decks and coauthored with Rosemary Ellen Guiley the accompanying books. Yet in early reviews it was stated that I co-designed these decks.


The question then becomes, how involved was Waite in this project? Certainly Waite had a mystical theory of the Tarot, a vision that he hoped Smith would express and it was in his nature to take seriously the direction of this project. Yet he hired Pamela because she had a gift for intuitive painting not the kind of work that is easily directed. Waite briefly acknowledges this challenge in his memoirs:


I saw to it therefore that Pamela Colman Smith should not be picking up casually any floating images from my own or another mind. She had to be spoon-fed carefully over the Priestess card, over that which is called the Fool and over the Hanged Man.

(Waite, Arthur Edward; Shadows of Life and Thought, Kessinger Publishing, Page 185.)


Waite specifies that he paid special attention to the direction of the three trumps listed above but we cannot assume that he had as much control over all of the cards.


Now, let’s look at the time frame in which Smith completed this work. Smith was in New York attending a show of her work at Stieglitz’ gallery in March or 1909. By necessity, she would have been working in January and February on the pieces that she would need for her show. On November 19, 1909, Smith wrote a letter to Stieglitz in which she mentions finishing her Tarot.


I’ve just finished a big job for very little cash! A set of designs for a pack of Tarot cards 80 designs – I shall send some over – of the original drawings as some people may like them! – I will send you a pack – (printed in color by lithography) – (probably very badly!) As soon as they are ready – by Dec. 1 – I think

(Kaplan; The Encyclopedia of Tarot, Vol III; U.S Games Stamford, CT:1990; Pages 30-33.)


The deck did come out in December and it is unlikely that Smith’s artwork could be transferred to plates and printed in less than two weeks and at the time that Smith is writing she seems to already have the original art back from the printer. We, therefore, can assume that she worked on the designs sometime between May, when she returned from New York, and October, the latest she could have delivered the art to the printer – within a five-month period. It is common for an artist to take a year or more to create a Tarot deck, I certainly do, and six months or less is a short time to produce eighty designs (there are seventy-eight cards in the deck and no one is sure what the other two designs were but perhaps they were a title card and an advertisement card) even for a spontaneous artist like Smith. Also, from Smith’s message we may surmise that she was not paid half of a year’s salary for this work, which may have made it necessary for her to complete other works for pay during this six-month period.



Even when it is clear that Waite did not design the deck, many people still assume that Waite oversaw every aspect of the design of the Waite-Smith Tarot and attribute even the smallest details on each card to his direction. This type of interaction between an artist and a director, however, would have been tedious and time consuming and given the short amount of time in which the deck was created it would actually have been almost impossible for Waite to have had this much input in all seventy-eight cards. It would have been highly impractical for Waite to be standing in Smith’s studio looking over her shoulder everyday during the months that she was working and he would have to choose which images merited his attention. Waite has continually expressed in his writing that he was most concerned with the symbolism of the Major Arcana, which he saw as expressing the mystical quest, and we can also infer from his writing that he would have been less concerned with the Minor Arcana, which he associated merely with divination.


It is most probable that for the Major Arcana Waite described the design that he desired for each card, complete with the symbolism it should contain and the significance of each symbol, and, then, he would have stepped out of the picture and let Smith work in her usual spontaneous and intuitive manor – it was Smith’s intuitive psychic ability that convinced Waite that Smith was the right person for task in the first place. Although the original art for the deck no longer exists, we can see from the printed copies that Smith drew the designs in black ink and colored them with watercolors in her usual manor. Art produced in this manor cannot be edited. If Waite desired changes once a design was complete, Smith would have had to recreate the entire piece, and considering the short time in which the work was completed that can not have happened often.


It seems that Waite gave Smith more freedom to express her visionary talent in the creation of the fifty-six Minor Arcana, which comprised the bulk of the work. Unlike earlier Tarots, which commonly display only a repetition of the suit symbol and possibly some decorative details on the pip cards, the Wait-Smith pips are illustrated with complete scenes in which figures interact with the correct number of suit symbols on each card. These scenes are allegorical and express the intended divinatory meaning of each card. As this innovation is one of the outstanding characteristics of the deck, it is likely that Wait requested it. We can also gather that he explained the general elemental and symbolic structure of the four suits, and provided a list, from the teachings of the Golden Dawn, Etteilla, and other sources, of traditional meanings that are associated with each card. These lists are included with each minor card in The Pictorial Key to the Tarot. Many of the meanings are contradictory and Smith’s illustrations convey only some of the listed meanings. As we can see in Waite’s descriptions in his book, Waite seems to have formed his opinion on which meaning is being conveyed after Smith created the illustrations. It is, therefore, likely that Smith chose from Waite’s list the meaning that she wanted to convey for each card.


Further evidence for Smith’s independence in the creation of the Minor Arcana can be gleaned from the fact that many of the characters and symbols that she incorporated in the pips are modeled on her own paintings that she completed sometimes years before receiving the commission. Many observers have also mentioned that besides the Tarot of Marseilles many of Smith’s illustrations for the Minor Arcana are clearly modeled on the 15th century Sola Busca Tarot, the only Renaissance deck to have figures and complete scenes on the pips. A complete set of photos of the Sola Busca engravings had arrived at the British Museum two years before Smith’s commission and was certainly available for Smith to study. It is known from Waite’s memoirs that he was a frequent visitor to the museum and he may have recommended the Sola Busca deck to Smith – in The Pictorial Key to the Tarot Waite acknowledges that there is an historic precedence for the fully illustrated pips. Also in the first article to be published about the deck, in the December 1909 “Occult Review,” the editor of the magazine introduced the deck and mentions that it was designed by Pamela Colman Smith, who did extensive research of historic Tarot decks.


72dpi 3 of Swords

 The Sola Busca and Smith’s Three of Swords

The pips in the Sola Busca deck contain scenes in which figures interact with the correct number of suit symbols for each card in the same way as Smith’s pips. Although we have no evidence that the images on the Sola Busca pips were intended to illustrate their divinatory meaning, other than a rare 19th century Russian edition of the Etteilla deck, this is the only Tarot that made use of this novel approach before the Waite-Smith deck. Besides taking the same approach as the Sola Busca, the Waite-Smith cards are also the same proportion as the Sola Busca cards, and many individual cards are obviously modeled on individual Sola Busca cards. The most obvious example is Smith’s three of swords which contains an image of a heart pierced by three swords that is almost identical to the image on the Sola Busca three of swords. Besides the pips many of Smith’s royal cards are also modeled on Sola Busca royal cards and even the her Fool seems to be modeled on the Sola Busca five of cups which contains a similar figure with a small dog at his feet. Many other images found in the deck can be connected with figures found in paintings in the British Museum and in museums in Holland. It is likely that Smith found inspiration in these works as well.


As we can see, although Waite gave the initial instructions to Smith for what he intended the deck to convey he could not have overseen the entire creative process nor controlled the numerous and subtle influences that Smith incorporated into the work.   It is only when he saw the finished art for the cards, that he wrote his impressions and added these before the lists of meanings in his book. The fact that these descriptions were only written after the art was complete is evident in the nature of the text. It reads like a description of a first time observer, one who, at times, misunderstands what he is looking at. This is especially obvious in his description for the Ace of Cups, Waite says that there are four streams pouring from the cup and the picture shows five.   For the Six of Swords, Waite says that “the course is smooth” but the water is smooth on the viewer’s left and choppy on the viewer’s right. It is different on each side of the boat, which suggests another meaning. Waite says that the man on the Seven of Pentacles is resting on his staff but the man is resting on a hoe. This figure is based on a painting popular at the time depicting labor and Waite seems to be unaware of the source. Even with Waite’s descriptions of the trumps we find mistakes. When is describes the Devil and the Chariot, he includes details found in Levi’s descriptions of thee cards that are not in Smith’s illustrations. As more and more of Smith’s sources are uncovered and the early mentions of Smith’s role in creating the deck come to light, I hope we can finally put to rest the myth that Waite designed the deck that is connected with his name, and that Pamela Colman Smith can receive the credit that she deserves.


72dpi Ad Occult Review 1910 Detail 1

 An ad from the 1910 “Occult Review,” mentioning Smith as the designer of the deck

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment


For over ten Years, I have been posting articles in my bimonthly email newsletter, The Restored Temple of Hermes, containing an article on Tarot and divination and news about by workshops and publications. For this blog I intend to repost these articles, and once these are all posted, the new articles as they are written. For the first I have chosen one from 2004 on the nature of divination.

If you would like to receive my newsletter, email me at


Include the Restored Temple of Hermes in the subject line and please let me know the name of the state or country where you live



copyright Robert M. Place 2004

“Divination” is often defined as an attempt to see into the future – synonymous with fortunetelling. However, this is not really what the word divination means. It is derived from the Latin divinus, which meant soothsayer, which, in turn, was derived from deus, meaning God. Literally it means to get in touch with God or the gods.

Pythia Aegeus Themis Delphi[1]

Most of us learned when we were in grammar school about the importance of the oracles in Greek culture. The most famous was the Oracle at Delphi, where a priestess, called the Pythia, sat on a tripod deep in a sacred cave and communicated with the god Apollo while in a self-induced trance. Inhaling the fumes from burning laurel and barley possibly helped her state. The story that the tripod was suspended over a fissure in the earth that emitted fumes, seems to be a later Hellenistic invention and is unsupported by archeological evidence. The Pythia’s pronouncements were often mysterious and they had to be interpreted by a body of priests, called the Prophetai. It is often said that the statements of the priests were ambiguous – as if they were trying to hedge their bets and make it difficult to say that the prediction was wrong. However, it is more likely that the statements were, at times, unclear because of the symbolic nature of communication with the inner world.

When I was in grade school studying the ancient Greeks, I was told the story of a Greek king, Croesus of Lydia, who because he was planning to invade the neighboring Persian kingdom, in 560bce, first asked the Delphic Oracle to predict the outcome. The pronouncement of the Oracle was, “A kingdom would be conquered.”   The king, thinking that this pronouncement guaranteed his success, went ahead with his plans, but, to his dismay, it was his kingdom that was lost. This story was popular because it illustrated the supposed ambiguous nature of the oracle and fatalistic attitude of the Greeks.   But, this is not how the ancient world viewed the oracles. They saw the oracle as a sound source for advice and wise council. For example, the Athenian ruler, Solon, known as the lawgiver, because he established democracy in Athens, successfully annexed the island of Salamis in 594bce, by following the oracle’s instructions. Later, he credited the Delphic Oracle for the inspiration to convert the government of Athens from the rule of tyrants to democratic rule.

Divination was an integral part of ancient religion. In ancient pre-Christian religion, there was no central authority such as the Pope or the Cardinals. Religious decisions were brought directly to the gods and through the oracles the gods answered. For most people, the oracles provided conclusive evidence verifying the existence of the gods.

At the oracle of Zeus, in Dodona, the questions that were asked of the oracle were first written on led tablets. Archaeologists have found stores of these tablets and can read first-hand what types of questions were asked. Hardly any questions requested a prediction. The questions include: “Is an alteration to a cult practice acceptable?” “Is a marriage, a journey, or a career choice wise?” “Which sacrifice does the god prefer?” “Will my wife conceive?” “How can I cure this illness?” “Is my child legitimate?” and the most common question, “How can I win divine favor?” Rather than being ambiguous, the answers were primarily yes, no, or by performing a religious ritual or sacrifice. Each oracle had a specialty. The oracle of Asclepius was devoted primarily to health issues and the Oracle of Delphi was noted for its philosophical and religious statements, but the great majority of the statements contained no predictions. Their aim was to help Individuals improve on existing conditions.

When we look at ancient histories and literature, we can see that even when the Greeks received a prediction from the gods they did not sit back and accept fate, but interacted with the gods in a creative way to change fate. This creative use of a prediction can be seen in the following famous example.

In 480 bce, The Persian king, Xerxes, amassed a huge army and invaded Greece. Intending to avenge the defeat that his father Darius had suffered at the hands of the Athenian general, Miltiades, during the previous invasion, Xerxes made the destruction of Athens his primary objective. As Xerxes army was the largest the Greeks had ever seen, the Athenians were concerned for their fate, and sent a messenger to consult the Oracle at Delphi. The Oracle sent back this answer, “Why sit you doomed one? Fly to the ends of the earth. All is ruin for fire and headlong the god of war shall bring you low.” Such a prediction of doom would send a fatalistic person into despair, but instead the Athenians held a council to decide what to do.

The Athenian general, Themistocles, was sure that there was a way to defeat the Persians, and asked that a second messenger be sent to Delphi. This time the question was, “What can we do to defeat the Persians?” The Oracle’s answer was “Though all else shall be taken, Zeus, the all seeing, grants that the wooden wall shall not fail.” Themistocles, interpreted the “wooden wall” as his fleet of ships. Although the Persian’s fleet had over twice as many ships, Themistocles knew that his triremes, small fast ships with a pointed bow designed for ramming, were superior in capability. The general convinced the population of Athens to abandon the city to Xerxes’ army. Instead of defending the city, he tricked the Persians into attacking the Athenian fleet in the narrow Strait of Salamis, where the Greek triremes were able to outmaneuver the larger Persian ships, ram them, and sink them. The result was one of the most famous victories in all of History. Without the support of their ships the Persian army retreated. The victory also assured the dominance of Athens in sea trade in the eastern Mediterranean. The resulting prosperity and influence helped to usher in the golden age of Athenian art and culture.


As we can see, divination does not mean simply predicting the future. It is a method of obtaining divine guidance – a way of making wise choices and creating a better fu

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments