Creating a Tarot Deck: Sexual Chemistry
The two defining Tarot decks of the Twentieth Century were designed by the partnership of a man and a woman. In both cases, the men directed the Artists, who were Clairvoyants in their own right.
Many people feel that the women have not been given the status and recognition they deserve, which have given rise to arguments on gender, and revisionist attempts that suggest it was the women who designed the deck and the men lent their names to the project, rather than the other way round.
The dynamics of the relationship between A.E. Waite and Pamela Coleman-Smith, and Aleister Crowley and Lady Frieda Harris are glossed over, mainly due to the paucity of hard facts.
AE Waite versus Aleister Crowley
Let us start with the men. Waite and Crowley were Initiates of the Golden Dawn who created their own Orders. Apart from the esoteric training both had undergone at the Golden Dawn, they both had encyclopaedic knowledge of Kabbalistic and magickal systems. They were also talented clairvoyants in their own right. Crowley fancied himself as an artist, but his abilities were rather limited (I saw the exhibition of Crowley’s work in London some years ago). Waite is certainly not known for his artistic ability.
The differences between the men are far more clearly defined. Apart from the mutual antipathy that existed between them, their lives took different directions. Waite gradually Christianised his own Orders, while Crowley took up his Thelemic work. Crowley’s Thoth deck was created at the end of his life, while Waite was much younger when he collaborated with PCS. It is also clear that the Golden Dawn’s Book T inspires Waite’s version, something he did not acknowledge in his books. The Thoth Tarot unites Crowley’s ideologies, beliefs and knowledge – just about everything of his work is found in the designs and the book.
Pamela Coleman-Smith versus Frieda Harris
On the other hand, the sum of knowledge concerning Pamela Coleman-Smith and Lady Frieda Harris is pitifully small. In Mary Greer’s Women of the Golden Dawn, the chapter concerning PCS and the Tarot covers only four pages, much of which is concerned with the influences of others. The lack of hard evidence makes it easy to speculate. What we do know is that W.B Yeats introduced PCS to the Golden Dawn; she did not rise above the beginners level, and a few years later she was initiated into Waite’s Independent and Rectified Order, where she stayed for nine years. There is an ambiguity as to whether Waite really did all the work on the Tarot, which allows Mary Greer to promote Florence Farr, while there is a stronger theory that it was W.B Yeats who worked with Waite.
Lady Frieda Harris revelled in the knowledge that she was working with the notorious Aleister Crowley. The surviving letters from Harris to Crowley show she had a great sense of humour, and an intense desire to complete the project; the World War II shortages of artists materials in England, and the fact that Crowley was dying were just a few of the obstacles to overcome. In fact neither lived to see the Tarot printed. In her letters, Harris begs Crowley to share with her the esoteric knowledge she needs to create the cards, so clearly she is not expert in these matters – indeed, the catalogue notes Harris wrote for the exhibition of the artwork show basic astrological mistakes.
In both cases men, both well versed in occult and esoteric kabalistic knowledge, who were talented magicians and clairvoyant in their own rights, drew on the artistic abilities of women who were psychic and clairvoyant as well as being artists, who were in sympathy with the aims and ideals, but were no great shakes in occult lore. I suggest that there are profound reasons at work.
My own experience comes into play here. While I am not in any way a Waite or Crowley, I am a healer and clairvoyant who has studied as much as possible the writings of the Golden Dawn, Thelema, and other occult systems. In my own magical work I collaborate with other healers and clairvoyants, but they do not have my in-depth knowledge. This is an advantage: there are times when my knowledge background will influence the psychic impressions I receive, so I need someone who is more ‘innocent’ on the subject. Later, when comparing notes I can add input on the kabbalistic levels. My colleagues have their own, rather idiosyncratic knowledge system based more upon personal experience, which provide valuable insights. This is the nearest we can come to an ‘objective’ analysis of the visions. We try to synthesize the understanding of our experiences, but we still have our own boundaries to the benefit of all. In fact, I have a ‘block’ in understanding my colleagues system, and I have to be reminded various aspects on a regular base – my mind is a sieve on this subject. Interestingly, they seem to have a problem retaining info relating to my background. What this points to is efficiency – we do not have a duplication of effort and knowledge, and we do not need to waste time studying in-depth areas where someone else in the group has knowledge. We can also validate the same vision/experience in different ways.
When it comes to the Tarot, Waite and Crowley may have done a similar kind of thing – simply reproducing their own vision on paper would have been too personal; using the talents of a sympathetic psychic/clairvoyant artist would have been akin to a kind of filter removing distortions. While there is no documentary evidence relating to Waite/PCS, we know that Harris had contact with spirits associated with the card she was designing on at least several occasions. More research needs to be done on this, and it would be interesting to know if modern day Tarot designers have had similar experiences
