Smith-Waite High Priestess and Isis

[Croat]

For me, one of the more intriguing Smith-Waite Tarot cards is the High Priestess.  Mainly because the card’s iconography is rather a hot mess of Egyptian, Graeco-Roman, and Jewish influences.  The depicted female seated figure is popularly thought to be based on the Egyptian goddess Isis.  She has two dominant symbols, namely a Greek (i.e., equal-armed) cross on her chest and moon representation (waxing/waning/full) atop her head.  The Greek Cross didn’t present until after Constantine shifted the empire to Christianity in the fourth century AD, by which time Isis was outlawed anyway.  In Egypt, depictions of Isis would typically show her holding a sistrum (a kind of clanging musical instrument), and/or situla (a wide-mouth pail), and/or hydreion (containing waters of the Nile), none of which are depicted on the Smith-Waite High Priestess card.  While Isis’ iconography evolved over the years as she was exported during the Ptolemaic period and syncretized with Roman and Greek goddesses (especially the Roman goddesses Venus, Diana, and Ceres, and the Greek goddesses Demeter, Artemis, and Hera), she was never associated with a cross beyond an Ankh, which is quite different.  The moon headdress, however, is more on point since the ancient Egyptians certainly saw Isis as a moon goddess (being consort to Osiris, associated with the sun), and likewise would often depict Isis with bovine horns on her head symbolically equating her with the goddess Hathor; those horns were subsequently (mis-)interpreted by both the Romans and Greeks (beginning in the Hellenistic period) as symbolizing waxing and waning moons.  Pomegranates?  Meh.  A young female grave site was found in the vicinity of Eleusis (Greece) containing both an Isis figurine and terracotta pomegranates, but it also had a wealth of other items (68 vases, gold and ivory jewelry, terracotta boots, et al) so maximizing a minimal association seems off-center.  Besides which pomegranates, even in ancient Egypt, were a somewhat common item included with burial sites as a symbol of eternal beauty and love.  The most direct connection is in Rome’s National Museum which has a terracotta bust of Isis with a pomegranate on her head, the only one I am aware of, but that is clearly a non-Egyptian product of Roman cultural influence.  As for the Boaz and Jachin pillars, woof!  Pillars were, of course, part and parcel of myriad ancient temples, Isis included, but not these specific pillars.  The cult of Isis is at least six thousand years old, whereas the B and J pillars were part of the first Jewish Temple construction in Jerusalem, scarcely half as long ago.  The Tora shown in the High Priestess’ lap is even younger.  Of course, like all Tarot cards we make of them what we will based on intuition and inspiration, but associating our interpretations with historical roots can broaden how we approach readings – or in the case of the Smith-Waite High Priestess, jumble our understanding in “mysterious ways.”

[Misterei]

1 hour ago, Croat said:

... the card’s iconography is rather a hot mess of Egyptian, Graeco-Roman, and Jewish influences. ...

As are so many of the RWS trumps.😉

With HP we also have freemasonry symbolism and Persephone [pomegranite is food of the dead in the Demeter/persephone myth cycle]. Anyway, thank you for a great commentary on the card symbols.

[Scandinavianhermit]

2 hours ago, Croat said:

The Greek Cross didn’t present until after Constantine shifted the empire to Christianity in the fourth century AD, by which time Isis was outlawed anyway.  

Constantine granted Christians freedom of religion in 313. The old religion kept its old rights. Constantinople was founded in 324, and it became the capital in 330. The Hippodrome had a public shrine dedicated to the Dioscuri. In the city there were also temples dedicated to Rhea and Tyche, respectively, so cult of the old deities wasn't outlawed at the time. Constantine didn't receive baptism until 337.

 

Freedom of religion decreased in the 370s: Manichæans lost it in 372 and non-Nicene Christians lost the right to public gatherings in 380, private ones in 383.

 

It wasn't until 381 public sacrifices were banned in Constantinople, but several places in the east received permission to celebrate old festivals as civil occasions without sacrifices, and none of this affected the western part of the empire. Isis' temple immediately outside of Rome was renovated as late as 376. New altars were dedicated on Phrygianum Vaticanum in 383 and 390, and Magnus Maximus expressly permitted public sacrifices in Rome in 386.

 

Cultus at the temples of Rome ended in 391-92, but, though use of incense in private cultus of the old deities became illegal, private practice of the old religion(s) is attested until c. 580s in Greece. Unless you were a courtier, who from 395 suffered death penalty if they sacrificed, 5th century Romans were practically speaking free to do whatever they liked in their household shrines, as shown by Symmachus (d. 402) and Rutilius Namatianus, and in the east there were examples such as Pamprepius in Egypt (d. 484) and Proclus in Greece (d. 485). The Heuresis festival, dedicated to Osiris, is attested in Faleria in 417. Since the temple of Isis in Philæ was located outside the borders of the empire, it continued in use until c. 540. The conversion of the Roman empire didn't happen from one day to another. 

Edited November 16, 2025 by Scandinavianhermit
more details, language

[DanielJUK]

Hi @Croat you posted a really thoughtful, interesting post, but there are no line breaks and paragraphs and it comes across as a wall of text. Some members won't notice it due to getting lost in the text and will miss your points.

 

Why not use paragraphs and line breaks next time? Smaller sections are much easier to read in the posts here, even on a longer post 🙂 

 

If you like, I can try and edit some breaks into your post, without deleting or changing any of your original text. 

[Scandinavianhermit]

For completeness' sake, I perhaps ought to add a few details:

 

• Our modern concept of freedom of religion didn't exist, and "selective toleration" is probably a better description of the Roman Republic's and the Roman Empire's policy throughout its history.
• Christianity was outside of that selective toleration until 313 CE, but for the study of how Egyptian religion became hellenised, it is interesting to note, that the cultus of Isis and Serapis/Osiris fell outside this selective toleration in 64 BCE, 59-58 BCE, 54-53 BCE, 50-48 BCE and 30 BCE. Augustus banned cultus of Egyptian deities within the cultic city borders (pomerium) of Rome, but allowed it outside of those borders in 28 BCE. In 25 BCE Augustus rearranged the Egyptian calendar. Another persection of Isis-priests in Rome happened under Tiberius in 19 CE. Caligula dedicated a temple to Isis by Campus Martiæ in 38 CE, and, from then on, the Roman approach to Egyptian cultus outside of Egypt improved. The Isis-temple by Campus Martiæ burned down in 80 CE, but was restored in 92 CE. From 217 CE, temples dedicated to Egyptian deities were allowed inside the old cultic city border of Rome, and temples to Isis on the Cælian and Quirinal are attested from this time. 
• After the death of Constantine, his sons carved up the empire. Constantius II, who favoured Arian Christianity, got a territory which would eventually become East Rome after the death of Theodosius several decades later. Constantius did, formally, outlaw pagan sacrifices, but his decree didn't have any lasting or practical effect, and it didn't affect his brothers' territories. His brother Constantine II maintained sacrifices in Britain, Spain and Gaul. Their brother Constans, who favoured Nicene Christianity, briefly decreed a similar ban on sacrifice in 341, only to immediately soften his stance. Co-emperor Magnentius allowed sacrifices by night, only to have that permission formally revoked by Constantius a few years later. The Roman pontifices, flamines and vestals remained in place, and provincial officeholders tacitly behaved like the bans on sacrifice didn't exist. Constantius appointed new pontifical officeholders in 357 and immediately before his death in 361. Unlike the decrees by Theodosius half a century later, Constantius II's attempts to ban sacrifice were inefficient and didn't have any lasting effects. 
• Emperor Julian (reigned 361-363), while banning Christians from serving as teachers, removed all limitations on pre-Christian religion(s). Emperor Valentinian I (reigned 364-375) pursued a mainly tolerant policy on religion.
• Magnus Maximus was an odd duck. He simultaneously favoured Nicene Christianity and the pre-Christian religion(s), but treated non-Nicene Christians harshly. It was Magnus Maximus who executed the "heretic" Priscillian, despite protests from bishops like Ambrose of Milan and Martin of Tours, who preferred debates with their theological opponents.
• "Pagans" were banned from being civil servants from the 540s, but that didn't affect "pagans" who weren't civil servants.
• The death-penalty on "paganism" remained an empty letter until the 570s. There are no attested executions of pagans before that time. The East Roman empire became more brutal from this time on.

 

My main point stands: Unpersecuted Christianity coincided with worship of Isis for at least 220 years.

 

Edited November 25, 2025 by Scandinavianhermit
spelling

[JoyousGirl]

@Scandinavianhermit I wonder if an increase in tolerance was associated with the economic situation of a place at the time?  The rules of religion place behavioural controls and expectations on people (tithing, for example) and can be used to manipulate through guilt and shame that is reinforced by other "more righteous" members - we see this in social culture today where people are lambasted for any deviation from the approved social expectations and norms of the time. 

 

We know some religions (and racial affinities or other ideologues) will emphasise "doing business" with members of that religion (or culture/racial background), effectively excluding "others" from the monetary benefits. This is somewhat discriminatory (paradoxically, some governments pass legislation against discrimination which reinforces such discrimination), and it increases lobbying power for that group. This further tips the balance between "us and them". 

 

I wonder about atheism and agnosticism of the time. A philosophical ruler wouldn't be able to be too open about the questions they have and their insights about the "lobbying religion with the most members" of the time. There's the potential for the rabble to rise up. Modern power structures have now devised advanced weapons to resolve that issue now (and social media with its propaganda mind control) - to the point of using the rabble to fight against the rabble - disposing of them "great unwashed" conveniently with clean hands in the process! 

 

I should add that element of secretiveness of the High Priestess in the cards. By that I mean the cards to me were a story telling device for those who could not read. We understand the Swords as the aristocracy - educated, power and money-hungry people and the associated conflict with maintaining these things. But they didn't interact with others in the hierarchy - only among themselves, or the Church (Cups?) who were another power structure for good or ill. 

 

The other suits Wands (the illiterate physical agricultural labourers whose inspiration led them to create methods to make their labours more tolerable?) and Pentacles (those who seek to elevate their material status by working with resources available to hand?) reflect other people represented in society. 

 

So, just as Jesus' followers sketched a fish in the dirt with their foot (secretly indicating their membership of the Christian cult), the Tarot cards may have been a secretive way of communicating with others to create change - that wouldn't get them in trouble or hung on some cross or drawn and quartered? Just an idea. I'm thinking that the High Priestess is a personal belief system, while the Hierophant is the group belief system.

Edited November 25, 2025 by JoyousGirl

[Scandinavianhermit]

13 hours ago, JoyousGirl said:

I'm thinking that the High Priestess is a personal belief system, while the Hierophant is the group belief system.

That's one of the ways I approach La Papesse and Le Pape in divination. Historically speaking, the allegorical personifications of Faith and Church in renaissance art looks like Le Papesse.

 

13 hours ago, JoyousGirl said:

the Tarot cards may have been a secretive way of communicating with others to create change - that wouldn't get them in trouble or hung on some cross or drawn and quartered? Just an idea. 

Before tarot was known to have emerged in 15th century northern Italy (Florence-Ferrara-Milan-Bologna), some writers proposed a link to the 13th century Cathars in southern France. The times and locations doesn't coincide, and there is now growing doubt whether Catharism (as described by the proto-inquisitors) ever existed to begin with, or was a useful propaganda lie to justify northern French (langue d'Oïl) military and political expansion into southern France (langue d'Oc).

 

Torture victims gives the answers they think their interrogators wish to hear, not the truth, so the inquisition and its precursors created the heresy they expected to exist. Before the northern invasion, the culture of southern France had more in common with Catalan, Savoyard and Piedmontese culture than with northern French culture. Actual self-styled 'Cathars', but not necessarily with the theology later associated with the word, are attested in Cologne in 1181, not in southern France decades later. It was probably a case of mistaken identity, and it was used to justify terrifying brutality. For the new scholarly approach to Catharism, try Mark Gregory Pegg: A Most Holy War (2008), R.I. Moore: The War on Heresy (2012) and Antonio Sennis (ed.): Cathars in Question (2016).

 

That said, movements in favour of a simple lifestyle may have existed in Tolouse, but originally without the particular theology they were accused of, and without calling themselves 'Cathars´. Such movements of simplicity were in vogue during the 12th and 13th centuries: Cistercians, Victorines, Norbertines, Franciscans, Augustinians and Dominicans all stayed within the existing Catholic church, while the Waldensians (originally in Lyons) did not.

 

13 hours ago, JoyousGirl said:

The rules of religion place behavioural controls and expectations on people (tithing, for example) and can be used to manipulate through guilt and shame that is reinforced by other "more righteous" members - we see this in social culture today where people are lambasted for any deviation from the approved social expectations and norms of the time. (...) I wonder about atheism and agnosticism of the time. A philosophical ruler wouldn't be able to be too open about the questions they have and their insights about the "lobbying religion with the most members" of the time. There's the potential for the rabble to rise up.

Pre-Christian religion(s) in the Roman empire didn't resemble post-Tridentine Catholicism, Evangelical Protestantism or Hasidism. State-funded public sacrifices and rituals of similar nature upheld peace between deities and humankind (Pax Deorum)  in the Italian peninsula or upheld the cosmic order (Maat) in Egypt. Preaching wasn't a part of pre-Christian religion, and the public didn't have to be present when city officials (in Rome persons appointed just for a term by the Senate, in Egypt a permanent profession) performed the inherited religious rites. In Egypt, much of the temple complex was off limits to the general public anyway. The general public wasn't expected or obliged to have any particular religious feelings or theological opinions. Marcus Terentius Varro made a distinction between the theology of the poets, the theology of the inherited rites and the theology of the philosophers, and he saw no reason for those three approaches to agree with each other. As for agnosticism, the Egyptian priest Chaeremon of Alexandria (1st century CE) held the deities to be personifications of nature. Epicureans denied divine intervention, so were atheists in a wider sense of the word, though modern categories like 'atheist' and 'agnostic' doesn't fit philosophies in the past well. It was all a matter of orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. There is even an agnostic dimension to the frequently used ritual formula "whether god or goddess". The Romans didn't claim to know the private details of their deities.

 

The problem with Christians, from the imperial government's point of view, was their stubborn refusal to burn incense to the genius of the emperor, which was held to be a demonstration of loyal civic duty, not primarily a religious ceremony. Christians in the empire held the view, that it was an act of idolatry, which was interpreted as treason by the Roman authorities. A clash between two entirely different worldviews caused the persecution of Christians. It wasn't one empire-wide and continuous persecution lasting 260 years: It was a matter of several regional persecutions each of which lasted rather briefly. The Diocletian one was the most brutal one, and the extent of the former ones has been exaggerated in earlier states of research. 

Edited November 26, 2025 by Scandinavianhermit
Epicureans, sive deus si dea

[JoyousGirl]

16 hours ago, Scandinavianhermit said:

Historically speaking, the allegorical personifications of Faith and Church in renaissance art looks like Le Papesse.

 

On a trip to Italy I became incredibly bored of seeing the Madonna and Child. However the sheer numbers of this image that were produced may represent artists' veiled pagan insight or beliefs. They knew which side their bread was buttered, though. 

 

The Church was/is a misogynistic lot, despite the nuns, that has from its origins sought to hide the feminine as creative origins of life. Yet in raising Mary's status they cover their "spiritual protection" base (just in case she strikes them with lightning or whatever). The Church is a mediator who played both sides - it can assert God's rule over the King's and can use the people to rise up against the King. 

[Scandinavianhermit]

10 hours ago, JoyousGirl said:

The Church was/is a misogynistic lot, despite the nuns, 

Since I live in a part of the world where married lesbians occasionally hold the office of bishop, I have another experience. Earth is a big planet with much diversity.

 

I don't want to diverge from the subject of history and art. Do you want to discuss how the study of the Classics and the concept of romanitas remained a part of mainland European culture until fairly recently? These are relevant for the history of tarot. 

[JoyousGirl]

6 hours ago, Scandinavianhermit said:

I live in a part of the world where married lesbians occasionally hold the office of bishop, I have another experience. Earth is a big planet with much diversity.

 

Yes, and the Church/religion is about control (otherwise why sacrifice?)  So why do people seek control? The cards themselves seek to help us to control things - they're an advanced form of entrails.   Why not just keep our spiritual beliefs to ourselves and worship alone? It would be more peaceful than labelling heretics and infidels for holding a different opinion. Your bishop example is still another form of social climbing and seeking to elevate oneself to the level of God's authority.    

 

6 hours ago, Scandinavianhermit said:

Do you want to discuss how the study of the Classics and the concept of romanitas remained a part of mainland European culture until fairly recently? These are relevant for the history of tarot. 

 

Not really.  I was just commenting on some personal reflections arising from the High Priestess and how living, breathing people of the time may be thinking and moving around in the world. 

 

My ongoing reflection is thinking about the two sides that exist.  An opinion/belief can get people into a lot of trouble, depending on who holds the power and the groupthink and desire to belong and be accepted (Church).  This is opposed to independent insight and intuition (High Priestess). So perhaps the Priestess says "stay silent" because this is how to get in touch with the power while the Church and its members outwardly try to show it and thereby lose the sacred personal relationship - and the contact with it, thereby disturb the peace i.e. "infidel!" "heretic!" "witch!"?  Anyway, I've gone way off track so I'll shut up now and leave you to your journaling.   

 

 

[Croat]

The ancients typically assigned epithets to their wide variety of divinities.  Think of epithets as a kind of adjective describing the God or Goddess in order to focus on specific divine aspects when worshipping them.  As a general rule, the more epithets given to a God or Goddess, the more influential they were in the daily lives of ancient people.

When it comes to epithets, it is telling to see how the ancients regarded Isis compared to most other Gods/Goddesses.  Obviously a god like Ares would have epithets like “Aenyalios” (God of war) and “Mainomenos” (the malignant).  But even Aphrodite, known for her beauty and love, had epithets like “Androphagos” (the killer of men) and “Tymborychos” (the grave digger).  

Isis, however, had no fear-provoking epithets that I’m aware of.  She seems fairly unique in having epithets emphasizing just her good aspects.  If we’re going to follow the tradition of linking the RWS High Priestess card with Isis, then perhaps a listing of ancient epithets for Isis would be helpful in readings, thus the list below of more common ancient epithets for the ancient Egyptian goddess (who became equally venerated in ancient Greece and Rome):

Isis Augusta                            Isis the Majestic/Venerable

Isis Dikaiosyne                        Isis Mother of the Gods

Isis Euphoia                            Isis of Good Sailing

Isis Frugifera                           Isis the Corn Bearer

Isis lactans                              Isis the Motherly Nursing One               

Isis Iochia                                Isis Protector of Mothers and Newborns    

Isis Karpophoros                    Isis the Fruit-Bearing Goddess

Isis Nebet Neru                      Isis for Whom We Are Full of Awe

Isis Nebut Weret                    Isis the Great Golden One

Isis Panthea                            Isis the Mistress of All

Isis Pelagian                            Isis Lady of the Sea

Isis Pharia                               Isis the Lighthouse Goddess

Isis Ploutodoteira                   Isis the One That Gives Wealth

Isis Sochit                                Isis of the Corn Field

Isis Soteira                              Isis the Eternal Savioress

Isis Thesmophoros                 Isis of Laws and Legislation

[Chariot]

On 11/25/2025 at 10:59 PM, JoyousGirl said:

I'm thinking that the High Priestess is a personal belief system, while the Hierophant is the group belief system.

That's a great distinction, in my opinion.

I've often read the reversed High Priestess as 'one's personal belief system and one's life situation at odds with each other.'  This implies that the upright card WOULD be a personal belief system, as well as the other meanings of intuition, etc, often associated with the card. 
 

I have never personally associated the The High Priestess with organised religion of any kind ...I leave that to The Hierophant.  I can't see the point of having two major arcana cards that mean more or less the same thing.  That being said, in older decks she is The Papess, which is hard to disassociate with religion—especially Christianity.
 

I must say, the High Priestess is a card I've often struggled with, when doing readings. 😞

Edited January 17 by Chariot