← Language
ES EN FR IT PT DE NL SV
HomeArticlesHistory and curiosities

Sabio Tarot · History and curiosities

By Sabio Tarot

Pamela Colman Smith and Rider–Waite–Smith imagery

In the Rider–Waite–Smith Ten of Wands, a person carries a bundle of staffs. Someone learning tarot can begin by describing that action before opening a dictionary of meanings. Pamela Colman Smith's visual work made that possible: her numbered cards were arranged as readable scenes, a major change from cards that mainly display suit symbols.

The Victoria and Albert Museum identifies Colman Smith as the designer of the lithographs for the deck associated with Arthur Edward Waite and publisher Rider. The British Museum lists her as an illustrator, writer and designer. Naming her credits the images to a person rather than a brand or the manual's author.

What she did on the project

The V&A explains that Waite gave detailed directions for the trumps or Major Arcana, while Colman Smith had more freedom in designing the Minor Arcana. The resulting cards show actions, gestures and relationships between objects that invite close looking. This does not give each scene one correct interpretation. The drawing supplies visual evidence for a reading, while the question's context still matters.

For example, on the Ten of Wands you can observe the body's direction, the number of staffs and the difficulty of carrying them. From there you might suggest an interpretation about burden or effort. In a “resource” position, the card may point to the capacity to sustain a task; in an “obstacle” position, to excessive accumulation. Both are contemporary editorial readings based on the scene, not fixed destiny printed by the artist.

The Met discusses present-day reinterpretations of Colman Smith's images. Her influence can also be seen in what other artists keep or change. If a modern edition alters figures, objects or setting, that is a creative decision. Do not call it an exact copy without comparing the cards.

Dates require attention to the object

The V&A dates the deck's first publication to 1909, while its record for a particular copy identifies a first printing in 1910 and a reprint in 1916. These may refer to the project's history and to specific copies or print runs. For a general historical description, “published in the early twentieth century” avoids forcing a match the source itself does not make without qualification. For a particular object, cite the date in its record.

A set held by the British Museum is a 1968 edition made “after” Waite and Colman Smith. It is not a box printed in 1909. This distinction between authorship of a design and date of an individual copy is easily lost in shops and photographs.

A comparison that shows her contribution

Find the Five of Cups in an identified Marseille edition and in an identified Rider–Waite–Smith edition. The first will show an arrangement of cups and decoration; the second, a scene where you can observe a figure, posture and objects. The point is not that one card “tells more truth”. Each system presents a different surface for reading.

Make two columns: “visible” and “interpreted”. In the first, write only details anyone could point to on the card. In the second, write your associations. With an illustrated Minor Arcana card, this prevents you from attributing to the drawing something it does not show. With Marseille, it stops you silently importing another deck's scene.

Colman Smith's work deserves study as design, not just as a tool for learning meanings. Her contribution was choosing what to show and how to organise it across 78 surfaces for reading. For more, read what Rider–Waite–Smith Minor Arcana scenes add and the roles of Waite, Rider and Smith.

Images help you read, but can steer you too strongly

A scene makes a card easier to remember because it gives the eye relationships that a word list cannot. It can also let a first impression dominate the whole question. A reader sees a dejected-looking figure and jumps to “failure”, even if the question and neighbouring cards call for a more open interpretation. The picture offers information, not permission to skip the context.

Try two passes. In the first, describe the object without psychological adjectives: figure, posture, objects, orientation and distance. In the second, suggest an interpretation confined to the spread position. A third pass looks for a detail that challenges the first idea. If you find none, keep the idea as a possibility; if you find one, adjust it. This process makes visible the kind of work Colman Smith's observable scenes allow.

Comparing a Marseille pip card reinforces the lesson. In a pip deck, the reader has to build relationships from number, suit and arrangement. In Rider–Waite–Smith, the artist suggests a situation that can almost seem to tell a story. Neither approach removes the need for a clear question or turns a picture into evidence about another person.

Two ways of erasing her authorship

The first is calling the scenes “Rider” as though a publisher drew every figure. The second is attributing every claim in a later manual about the meaning of her pictures to Colman Smith herself, without evidence. She made the images; Waite directed the project and wrote texts; later readers and editors developed new interpretations. You can recognise all three layers in one sentence without mixing them.

If a deck today says it is “inspired by Smith”, compare two cards to see what it keeps. One may preserve the composition while changing the figures; another may move objects and create a new scene. Inspiration is an artistic relationship, not a guarantee of an exact copy. If the accompanying book claims a figure “always represents” the person asking, that is a reading proposal to assess for usefulness and care, not a fact secured by a historic name on the box.

One revealing exercise is to write a four-line record for a numbered card: “observation”, “association in my manual”, “interpretation for this question” and “outside information I need to check”. This gives Colman Smith's design its proper central place without turning it into evidence of a fact the image cannot show.

Sources consulted