From Ritual to Romance

by
Jesse L. Weston

Chapter 6

   |    E-text's table of contents    |    About the text    |    About the formatting    |   

Synopsis for Chapter VI
The Symbols

Summary of results of previous enquiry.  The Medieval Stage.  Grail
romances probably contain record of secret ritual of a Fertility cult.
The Symbols of the cult--Cup, Lance, Sword, Stone, or Dish.  Plea for
treating Symbols as a related group not as isolated units.  Failure to
do so probably cause of unsatisfactory result of long research.
Essential to recognize Grail story as an original whole and to treat
it in its ensemble aspect.  We must differentiate between origin and
accretion.  Instances.  The Legend of Longinus.  Lance and Cup not
associated in Christian Art.  Evidence.  The Spear of Eastern
Liturgies only a Knife.  The Bleeding Lance.  Treasures of the Tuatha
de Danann.  Correspond as a group with Grail Symbols.  Difficulty of
equating Cauldron-Grail.  Probably belong to a different line of
tradition.  Instances given.  Real significance of Lance and Cup.
Well known as Life Symbols.  The Samurai.  Four Symbols also preserved
as Suits of the Tarot.  Origin of Tarot discussed.  Probably reached
Europe from the East.  Use of the Symbols in Magic.  Probable
explanation of these various appearances to be found in fact that
associated group were at one time symbols of a Fertility cult.
Further evidence to be examined.


Chapter VI
The Symbols

In the previous chapters we have discussed the Grail Legend from a
general, rather than a specific, point of view; i.e., we have
endeavoured to ascertain what was the real character of the task
imposed upon the hero, and what the nature and value of his
achievement.

We have been led to the conclusion that that achievement was, in the
first instance, of an altruistic character--it was no question of
advantages, temporal or spiritual, which should accrue to the Quester
himself, but rather of definite benefits to be won for others, the
freeing of a ruler and his land from the dire results of a punishment
which, falling upon the King, was fraught with the most disastrous
consequences for his kingdom.

We have found, further, that this close relation between the ruler and
his land, which resulted in the ill of one becoming the calamity of
all, is no mere literary invention, proceeding from the fertile
imagination of a twelfth century court poet, but a deeply rooted
popular belief, of practically immemorial antiquity and inexhaustible
vitality; we can trace it back thousands of years before the Christian
era, we find it fraught with decisions of life and death to-day.

Further, we find in that belief a tendency to express itself in
certain ceremonial practices, which retain in a greater or less degree
the character of the ritual observances of which they are the
survival.  Mr E. K. Chambers, in The Mediaeval Stage, remarks: "If the
comparative study of Religion proves anything it is, that the
traditional beliefs and customs of the mediaeval or modern peasant are
in nine cases out of ten but the detritus of heathen mythology and
heathen worship, enduring with but little external change in the
shadow of a hostile faith.  This is notably true of the village
festivals and their ludi.  Their full significance only appears when
they are regarded as fragments of forgotten cults, the naïve cults
addressed by a primitive folk to the beneficent deities of field
and wood and river, or the shadowy populace of its own dreams."[1]
We may, I think, take it that we have established at least the
possibility that in the Grail romances we possess, in literary form,
an example of the detritus above referred to, the fragmentary record
of the secret ritual of a Fertility cult.

Having reached this hypothetical conclusion, our next step must be
to examine the Symbols of this cult, the group of mysterious objects
which forms the central point of the action, a true understanding of
the nature of these objects being as essential for our success as
interpreters of the story as it was for the success of the Quester in
days of old.  We must ask whether these objects, the Grail itself,
whether Cup or Dish; the Lance; the Sword; the Stone--one and all
invested with a certain atmosphere of awe, credited with strange
virtues, with sanctity itself, will harmonize with the proposed
solution, will range themselves fitly and fairly within the framework
of this hypothetical ritual.

That they should do so is a matter of capital importance; were it
otherwise the theory advanced might well, as some of my critics have
maintained, 'never get beyond the region of ingenious speculation,'
but it is precisely upon the fact that this theory of origin, and so
far as criticism has gone, this theory alone, does permit of a
natural and unforced interpretation of these related symbols that I
rely as one of the most convincing proofs of the correctness of my
hypothesis.

Before commencing the investigation there is one point which I would
desire to emphasize, viz., the imperative necessity for treating the
Symbols or Talismans, call them what we will, on the same principle as
we have treated the incidents of the story, i.e., as a connected
whole.  That they be not separated the one from the other, and made
the subject of independent treatment, but that they be regarded in
their relation the one to the other, and that no theory of origin be
held admissible which does not allow for that relation as a primitive
and indispensable factor.  It may be the modern tendency to specialize
which is apt to blind scholars to the essential importance of
regarding their object of study as a whole, that fosters in them a
habit of focussing their attention upon that one point or incident of
the story which lends itself to treatment in their special line of
study, and which induces them to minimize, or ignore, those elements
which lie outside their particular range.  But, whatever the cause, it
is indubitable that this method of 'criticism by isolation' has been,
and is, one of the main factors which have operated in retarding the
solution of the Grail problem.

So long as critics of the story will insist on pulling it into little
pieces, selecting one detail here, another there, for study and
elucidation, so long will the ensemble result be chaotic and
unsatisfactory.  We shall continue to have a number of monographs,
more or less scholarly in treatment--one dealing with the Grail as a
Food-providing talisman, and that alone; another with the Grail as a
vehicle of spiritual sustenance.  One that treats of the Lance as a
Pagan weapon, and nothing more; another that regards it as a Christian
relic, and nothing less.  At one moment the object of the study will
be the Fisher King, without any relation to the symbols he guards, or
the land he rules; at the next it will be the relation of the Quester
to the Fisher King, without any explanation of the tasks assigned to
him by the story.  The result obtained is always quite satisfactory to
the writer, often plausible, sometimes in a measure sound, but it
would defy the skill of the most synthetic genius to co-ordinate the
results thus obtained, and combine them in one harmonious whole.  They
are like pieces of a puzzle, each of which has been symmetrically cut
and trimmed, till they lie side by side, un-fitting, and un-related.

And we have been pursuing this method for over fifty years, and are
still, apparently, content to go on, each devoting attention to the
symmetrical perfection of his own little section of the puzzle, quite
indifferent to the fact that our neighbour is in possession of an
equally neatly trimmed fragment, which entirely refuses to fit in with
our own!

Is it not time that we should frankly admit the unsatisfactory results
of these years of labour, and honestly face the fact that while we now
have at our disposal an immense mass of interesting and suggestive
material often of high value, we have failed, so far, to formulate a
conclusion which, by embracing and satisfying the manifold conditions
of the problem, will command general acceptance?  And if this failure
be admitted, may not its cause be sought in the faulty method which
has failed to recognize in the Grail story an original whole, in which
the parts--the action, the actors, the Symbols, the result to be
obtained, incident, and intention--stood from the very first in
intimate relation the one to the other?  That while in process of
utilization as a literary theme these various parts have suffered
modification and accretion from this, or that, side, the problem of
the ultimate source remains thereby unaffected?

Such a reversal of method as I suggest will, I submit, not only
provide us with a critical solution capable of general acceptance, but
it will also enable us to utilize, and appreciate at their due value,
the result of researches which at the present moment appear to be
mutually destructive the one of the other.  Thus, while the purely
Folk-lore interpretation of the Grail and Lance excludes the Christian
origin, and the theory of the exclusively Christian origin negatives
the Folk-lore, the pre-existence of these symbols in a popular ritual
setting would admit, indeed would invite, later accretion alike from
folk belief and ecclesiastical legend.

We are the gainers by any light that can possibly be thrown upon the
process of development of the story, but studies of the separate
symbols while they may, and do, afford valuable data for determining
the character and period of certain accretions, should not be regarded
as supplying proof of the origin of the related group.

Reference to some recent studies in the Legend will make my meaning
clear.  A reviewer of my small Quest of the Holy Grail volume remarked
that I appeared to be ignorant of Miss Peebles's study The Legend of
Longinus "which materially strengthens the evidence for the Christian
origin."[2]  Now this is precisely what, in my view, the study in
question, which I knew and possessed, does not do.  As evidence for
the fact that the Grail legend has taken over certain features derived
from the popular 'Longinus' story (which, incidentally, no one disputed),
the essay is, I hold, sound, and valuable; as affording material for
determining the source of the Grail story, it is, on the other hand,
entirely without value.

On the principle laid down above no theory which purports to be
explanatory of the source of one symbol can be held satisfactory in a
case where that symbol does not stand alone.  We cannot accept for the
Grail story a theory of origin which concerns itself with the Lance,
as independent of the Grail.  In the study referred to the author has
been at immense pains to examine the different versions of the
'Longinus' legend, and to trace its development in literature; in no
single instance do we find Longinus and his Lance associated with a
Cup or Vase, receptacle of the Sacred Blood.

The plain fact is that in Christian art and tradition Lance and Cup
are not associated symbols.  The Lance or Spear, as an instrument of
the Passion, is found in conjunction with the Cross, Nails, Sponge,
and Crown of Thorns, (anyone familiar with the wayside Crosses of
Catholic Europe will recognize this), not with the Chalice of the
Mass.[3]  This latter is associated with the Host, or Agnus Dei.
Still less is the Spear to be found in connection with the Grail in
its Food-providing form of a Dish.

No doubt to this, critics who share the views of Golther and Burdach
will object, "but what of the Byzantine Mass?  Do we not there find a
Spear connected with the Chalice?"[4]

I very much doubt whether we do--the so-called 'Holy Spear' of the
Byzantine, and present Greek, liturgy is simply a small silver
spear-shaped knife, nor can I discover that it was ever anything
else.  I have made careful enquiries of liturgical scholars, and
consulted editions of Oriental liturgies, but I can find no evidence
that the knife (the use of which is to divide the Loaf which, in the
Oriental rite, corresponds to the Wafer of the Occidental, in a manner
symbolically corresponding to the Wounds actually inflicted on the
Divine Victim) was ever other than what it is to-day.  It seems obvious,
from the method of employment, that an actual Spear could hardly have
been used, it would have been an impossibly unwieldy instrument for
the purpose.

Nor is the 'procession' in which the elements are carried from the
Chapel of the Prothesis to the Sanctuary of a public character
comparable with that of the Grail castle; the actual ceremony of the
Greek Mass takes place, of course, behind a veil.  A point of
considerable interest, however, is, what caused this difference in the
Byzantine liturgy?  What were the influences which led to the
introduction of a feature unknown to the Western rite?  If, as the
result of the evidence set forth in these pages, the ultimate origin
of the Grail story be finally accepted as deriving from a prehistoric
ritual possessing elements of extraordinary persistence and vitality,
then the mise-en-scène of that story is older than the Byzantine
ritual.  Students of the subject are well aware that the tradition of
ancient pre-Christian rites and ceremonies lingered on in the East
long after they had been banished by the more practical genius of the
West.  It may well prove that so far from the Grail story being a
reminiscence of the Byzantine rite, that rite itself has been affected
by a ritual of which the Grail legend preserves a fragmentary record.

In my view a Christian origin for Lance and Cup, as associated
symbols, has not been made out; still less can it be postulated for
Lance and Cup as members of an extended group, including Dish, Sword,
and Stone.

On this point Professor Brown's attempt to find in Irish tradition the
origin of the Grail symbols is distinctly more satisfactory.[5]

I cannot accept as decisive the solution proposed, which seems to me
to be open to much the same criticism as that which would find in the
Lance the Lance of Longinus--both are occupied with details, rather
than with ensemble; both would find their justification as offering
evidence of accretion, rather than of origin; neither can provide us
with the required mise-en-scène.

But Professor Brown's theory is the more sound in that he is really
dealing with a group of associated symbols; in his view Lance and
Grail alike belong to the treasures of the Tuatha de Danann (that
legendary race of Irish ancestors, who were at once gods and kings),
and therefore ab initio belong together.  But while I should, on the
whole, accept the affiliation of the two groups, and believe that the
treasures of the Tuatha de Danann really correspond to the symbols
displayed in the hall of the Grail castle, I cannot consider that the
one is the origin of the other.  There is one very fundamental
difference, the importance of which I cannot ignore, but which, I
believe, has hitherto escaped Professor Brown's attention.

The object corresponding to the Grail itself is the cauldron of the
Dagda, "No company ever went from it unthankful" (or 'unsatisfied').[6]

Now this can in no sense be considered as a Cup, or Vase, nor is it the
true parallel to a Dish.  The connection with the Grail is to be found
solely and exclusively in the food-providing properties ascribed to
both.  But even here the position is radically different; the
impression we derive from the Irish text and its analogous parallels
is that of size (it is also called a 'tub'), and inexhaustible
content, it is a cauldron of plenty.[7]  Now, neither of these
qualities can be postulated of the Grail; whatever its form, Cup or
Dish, it can easily be borne (in uplifted hands, entre ses mains
hautement porte) by a maiden, which certainly could not be postulated
of a cauldron!  Nor is there any proof that the Vessel itself
contained the food with which the folk of the Grail castle were
regaled; the texts rather point to the conclusion that the appearance
of the Grail synchronized with a mysterious supply of food of a choice
and varied character.  There is never any hint that the folk feed from
the Grail; the only suggestion of such feeding is in the 'Oiste,' by
which the father of the Fisher King (or the King himself) is
nourished.

In certain texts the separation of the two is clearly brought out; in
Joseph of Arimathea, for instance, the Fish caught by Brons is to be
placed at one end of the table, the Grail at the other.  In Gawain's
adventure at the Grail castle, in the prose Lancelot, as the Grail is
carried through the hall "forthwith were the tables replenished with
the choicest meats in the world," but the table before Gawain remains
void and bare.[8]  I submit that while the Grail is in certain phases
a food-supplying talisman it is not one of the same character as the
cauldrons of plenty; also while the food supply of these latter has
the marked characteristic of quantity, that of the Grail is remarkable
rather for quality, its choice character is always insisted upon.

The perusal of Professor Brown's subsequent study, Notes on Celtic
Cauldrons of Plenty and The Land-Beneath-the-Waves, has confirmed me
in my view that these special objects belong to another line of
tradition altogether; that which deals with an inexhaustible submarine
source of life, examples of which will be found in the 'Sampo' of the
Finnish Kalewala, and the ever-grinding mills of popular folk-tale.[9]
The fundamental idea here seems to be that of the origin of all Life
from Water, a very ancient idea, but one which, though akin to the
Grail tradition, is yet quite distinct therefrom.  The study of this
special theme would, I believe, produce valuable results.[10]

On the whole, I am of the opinion that the treasures of the Tuatha de
Danann and the symbols of the Grail castle go back to a common
original, but that they have developed on different lines; in the
process of this development one 'Life' symbol has been exchanged for
another.

But Lance and Cup (or Vase) were in truth connected together in a
symbolic relation long ages before the institution of Christianity,
or the birth of Celtic tradition.  They are sex symbols of immemorial
antiquity and world-wide diffusion, the Lance, or Spear, representing
the Male, the Cup, or Vase, the Female, reproductive energy.[12]

Found in juxtaposition, the Spear upright in the Vase, as in the
Bleheris and Balin (both, be it noted, Gawain) forms, their
signification is admitted by all familiar with 'Life' symbolism, and
they are absolutely in place as forming part of a ritual dealing with
the processes of life and reproductive vitality.[13]

A most remarkable and significant use of these symbols is found in the
ceremonies of the Samurai, the noble warrior caste of Japan.  The
aspirant was (I am told still is) admitted into the caste at the age
of fourteen, when he was given over to the care of a guardian at least
fifteen years his senior, to whom he took an oath of obedience, which
was sworn upon the Spear.  He remained celibate during the period
covered by the oath.  When the Samurai was held to have attained the
degree of responsibility which would fit him for the full duties of a
citizen, a second solemn ceremony was held, at which he was released
from his previous vows, and presented with the Cup; he was henceforth
free to marry, but intercourse with women previous to this ceremony
was at one time punishable with death.[14]

That Lance and Cup are, outside the Grail story, 'Life' symbols, and
have been such from time immemorial, is a fact; why, then should they
not retain that character inside the framework of that story?  An
acceptance of this interpretation will not only be in harmony with the
general mise-en-scène, but it will also explain finally and
satisfactorily, (a) the dominant position frequently assigned to the
Lance; (b) the fact that, while the Lance is borne in procession by a
youth, the Grail is carried by a maiden--the sex of the bearer
corresponds with the symbol borne.[15]

But Lance and Cup, though the most prominent of the Symbols, do
not always appear alone, but are associated with other objects, the
significance of which is not always apparent.  Thus the Dish, which is
sometimes the form assumed by the Grail itself, at other times appears
as a tailléor, or carving platter of silver, carried in the same
procession as the Grail; or there may be two small tailléors; finally,
a Sword appears in varying rôles in the story.

I have already referred to the fact, first pointed out by the late Mr
Alfred Nutt,[16] that the four treasures of the Tuatha de Danann
correspond generally with the group of symbols found in the Grail
romances; this correspondence becomes the more interesting in view of
the fact that these mysterious Beings are now recognized as alike
Demons of Fertility and Lords of Life.  As Mr Nutt subsequently
pointed out, the 'Treasures' may well be, Sword and Cauldron certainly
are, 'Life' symbols.

Of direct connection between these Celtic objects and the Grail story
there is no trace; as remarked above, we have no Irish Folk or Hero
tale at all corresponding to the Legend; the relation must, therefore,
go back beyond the date of formation of these tales, i.e., it must be
considered as one of origin rather than of dependence.

But we have further evidence that these four objects do, in fact, form
a special group entirely independent of any appearance in Folk-lore or
Romance.  They exist to-day as the four suits of the Tarot.

Students of the Grail texts, whose attention is mainly occupied with
Medieval Literature, may not be familiar with the word Tarot, or aware
of its meaning.  It is the name given to a pack of cards,
seventy-eight in number, of which twenty-two are designated as the
'Keys.'

These cards are divided into four suits, which correspond with those
of the ordinary cards; they are:
   Cup (Chalice, or Goblet)--Hearts.
   Lance (Wand, or Sceptre)--Diamonds.
   Sword--Spades.
   Dish (Circles, or Pentangles, the form varies)--Clubs.

To-day the Tarot has fallen somewhat into disrepute, being principally
used for purposes of divination, but its origin, and precise relation
to our present playing-cards, are questions of considerable
antiquarian interest.  Were these cards the direct parents of our
modern pack, or are they entirely distinct therefrom?[17]

Some writers are disposed to assign a very high antiquity to the
Tarot.  Traditionally, it is said to have been brought from Egypt;
there is no doubt that parallel designs and combinations are to be
found in the surviving decorations of Egyptian temples, notably in the
astronomic designs on the ceiling of one of the halls of the palace of
Medinet Abou, which is supported on twenty-two columns (a number
corresponding to the 'keys' of the Tarot), and also repeated in a
calendar sculptured on the southern façade of the same building, under
a sovereign of the XXIII dynasty.  This calendar is supposed to have
been connected with the periodic rise and fall of the waters of the
Nile.[18]

The Tarot has also been connected with an ancient Chinese monument,
traditionally erected in commemoration of the drying up of the waters
of the Deluge by Yao.  The face of this monument is divided up into
small sections corresponding in size and number with the cards of the
Tarot, and bearing characters which have, so far, not been
deciphered.

What is certain is that these cards are used to-day by the Gipsies for
purposes of divination, and the opinion of those who have studied the
subject is that there is some real ground for the popular tradition
that they were introduced into Europe by this mysterious people.

In a very interesting article on the subject in The Journal of the
Gipsy-Lore Society,[19] Mr De la Hoste Ranking examines closely into
the figures depicted on the various cards, and the names attached to
the suits by the Gipsies.  He comes to the conclusion that many of
the words are of Sanskrit, or Hindustani, origin, and sums up the
result of the internal evidence as follows: "The Tarot was introduced
by a race speaking an Indian dialect.  The figure known as 'The Pope'
shows the influence of the Orthodox Eastern Faith; he is bearded, and
carries the Triple Cross.  The card called 'The King' represents a
figure with the head-dress of a Russian Grand-Duke, and a shield bearing
the Polish eagle.  Thus the people who used the Tarot must have been
familiar with a country where the Orthodox Faith prevailed, and which
was ruled by princes of the status of Grand-Dukes.  The general result
seems to point to a genuine basis for the belief that the Tarot was
introduced into Europe from the East."

As regards the group of symbols in general, Mr W. B. Yeats, whose
practical acquaintance with Medieval and Modern Magic is well known,
writes: "(1) Cup, Lance, Dish, Sword, in slightly varying forms, have
never lost their mystic significance, and are to-day a part of magical
operations.  (2) The memory kept by the four suits of the Tarot, Cup,
Lance, Sword, Pentangle (Dish), is an esoterical notation for
fortune-telling purposes."[20]

But if the connection with the Egyptian and Chinese monuments,
referred to above, is genuine, the original use of the 'Tarot' would
seem to have been, not to foretell the Future in general, but to
predict the rise and fall of the waters which brought fertility to the
land.

Such use would bring the 'Suits' into line with the analogous symbols
of the Grail castle and the treasures of the Tuatha de Danann, both of
which we have seen to be connected with the embodiment of the
reproductive forces of Nature.

If it is difficult to establish a direct connection between these two
latter, it is practically impossible to argue any connection between
either group and the 'Tarot'; no one has as yet ventured to suggest the
popularity of the works of Chrétien de Troyes among the Gipsies!  Yet
the correspondence can hardly be fortuitous.  I would suggest that,
while Lance and Cup, in their associated form, are primarily symbols
of Human Life energy, in conjunction with others they formed a group
of 'Fertility' symbols, connected with a very ancient ritual, of which
fragmentary survivals alone have been preserved to us.

This view will, I believe, receive support from the evidence of the
ceremonial Dances which formed so important a part of 'Fertility'
ritual, and which survive in so many places to this day.  If we find
these symbols reappearing as a part of these dances, their real
significance can hardly be disputed.



Notes to Chapter VI

[1]  Op. cit. Vol. I. p. 94.
[2]  The Legend of Longinus, R. J. Peebles (Bryn Mawr College
monographs, Vol. IX.).
[3]  I discussed this point with Miss Lucy Broadwood, Secretary of
the Folk-Song Society, who has made sketches of these Crosses, and she
entirely agrees with me.  In my Quest of the Holy Grail, pp. 54 et seq.,
I have pointed out the absolute dearth of ecclesiastical tradition with
regard to the story of Joseph and the Grail.
[4]  Cf. Littaturzeitung, XXIV. (1903), p. 2821.
[5]  Cf. The Bleeding Lance, A. C. L. Brown.
[6]  Cf. Brown, op. cit. p. 35; also A. Nutt, Studies in the Legend of
the Holy Grail, p. 184.
[7]  Cf. Brown, Notes on Celtic Cauldrons of Plenty, p. 237.
[8]  Cf. Queste, Malory, Book XIII. Chap. 7, where the effect is
the same.
[9]  Cf. Germanische Elben und Götter beim Estenvolker,
L. von Schroeder (Wien, 1906).
[10] I suggested this point in corrspondence with Dr Brugger,
who agreed with me that it was worth working out.
[11] Before leaving the discussion of Professor Brown's theory, I
would draw attention to a serious error made by the author of
The Legend of Longinus.  On p. 191, she blames Professor Brown for
postulating the destructive qualities of the Lance, on the strength of
'an unsupported passage' in the 'Mons' MS., whereas the Montpellier
text says that the Lance shall bring peace.  Unfortunately, it is
this latter version which is unsupported, all the MSS., without even
excepting B.N. 1429, which as a rule agrees with Montpellier, give
the 'destructive' version.
[12] Cf. Dulaure, Des Divinités Génératrices, p. 77.  Also additional
chapter to last edition by Van Gennep, p. 333; L. von Schroeder,
Mysterium und Mimus, pp. 279-80, for symbolic use of the Spear.
McCulloch, Religion of the Celts, p. 302, suggests that it is not
impossible that the cauldron==Hindu yoni, which of course would bring
it into line with the above suggested meaning of the Grail.  I think
however that the real significance of the cauldron is that previously
indicated.
[13] It is interesting to note that this relative position of Lance
and Grail lingers on in late and fully Christianized versions;
cf. Sommer, The Quest of the Holy Grail, Romainia, XXXVI. p. 575.
[14] My informant on this point was a scholar, resident in Japan,
who gave me the facts within his personal knowledge.  I referred the
question to Prof. Basil Hall Chamberlain, who wrote in answer that he
had not himself met with the practice but that the Samurai ceremonies
differed in different provinces, and my informant might well be correct.
[15] This explanation has at least the merit of simplicity as compared
with that proposed by the author of The Legend of Longinus, pp. 209
et seq., which would connect the feature with an obscure heretical
practice of the early Irish church.  It would also meet Professor
Brown's very reasonable objections, The Bleeding Lance, p. 8;
cf. also remarks by Baist quoted in the foot-note above.
[16] Cf. my Legend of Sir Perceval, Vol. II. pp. 314-315, note.
[17] Mr A. E. Waite, who has published a book on the subject,
informs me that the 17 cards preserved in the Bibliothèque du Roi
(Bibl. Nationale?) as specimens of the work of the painter
Charles Gringonneur, are really Tarots.
[18] Falconnier, in a brochure on Les XXII Lames Hermetiques du Tarot,
gives reproductions of these Egyptian paintings.
[19] Journal of the Gipsy-Lore Society, Vol. II. New Series,
pp. 14-37.
[20] From a private letter.  The ultimate object of Magic in all
ages was, and is, to obtain control of the sources of Life.  Hence,
whatever was the use of these objects (of which I know nothing),
their appearance in this connection is significant.

[ End of chapter ]