Sources on TAROT - Old system VS Modern system
-
Hello,
I'm looking for some traditional qabalistic sources showing the connection between the 22 letters of the hebrew alphabet and the 22 Arcana of the Tarot. This is because I know there is a modern system of correspondences (by the Golden Dawn / Aleister Crowley?) according to which the letter Aleph corresponds to "The Fool" (0), Beth to "The Magus" (1), etc, until Resh = "The Sun", Shin = "Aeon" (20) and Tav = "Universe" (21).
However, authors like Papus in his "The Tarot of the Bohemians" use a very different system, according to which Aleph = "The Magician" (1), Beth = "The High Priestess" (2), etc, until Resh = "Judgement" (20), Shin = "The Fool" (0), and Tav = "The World" (21).
On a personal level I find the modern system to be of great value and inherent logic, even though it contains some twists that, for a "purist", could be considered quite strange (like Teth = Atu 11 and Lamed = Atu 8, or even Heh = Atu 17 and Tzaddi = Atu 4). On the other side, the old system also appears to be logical in some cases (for instance Samech – the initial letter of Samael – corresponds to "The Devil", and Mem – the initial letter of Met or Mot ("Death" in hebrew) – corresponds to "Death"). There is only one detail in the old system that keeps me puzzled: the fact that "The Fool" is attributed to Shin and inserted between "Judgement" and "The World".
So this is why I'm looking for traditional sources on this subject. Do you know if there is there any qabalistic/jewish text that supports either one or the other system? I'm looking forward to your replies, and any help will be most appreciated. Thank you!
H.
-
@Harpokrates said
"However, authors like Papus in his "The Tarot of the Bohemians" use a very different system, according to which Aleph = "The Magician" (1), Beth = "The High Priestess" (2), etc, until Resh = "Judgement" (20), Shin = "The Fool" (0), and Tav = "The World" (21)."
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the Levi/Papus correspondences was a blind.
729
-
Yes. Papus copied Levi. The balance of evidence does seem to indicate that Levi knew the correct attributions and didn't publish them, providing a blinded scheme instead.
...19, 20, 0, 21... Indeed!
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"The balance of evidence"
What evidence is there except that it's what we want to believe?
-
@gmugmble said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"The balance of evidence"What evidence is there except that it's what we want to believe?"
Belief and wishful thinking aren't evidence.
Case made a lengthy case for this in various of his writings - it's too long to provide in a forum type of response.
I say "balance of evidence" because I can think of at least one point that argues in the opposite direction: His private letters to a personal student use the same attributions as his books. But that's not definitive, since, if he indeed was under an obligation of secrecy, there's no reason to believe the student would have been encompassed by it; so the same kind of behavior would be expected as with public writings.
Something that doesn't really come under "evidence" because it relies on a fact that is, itself, not proven: The G.D. cipher manuscripts give the attributions. These are with almost total certainty traceable to Mackenzie. Mackenzie is known to have been an acquaintance and occasional collaborator with Levi. One page of the cipher manuscripts decodes to French instead of English. Therefore, it is believed and even likely, but not proven, that Levi had access to the information in the cipher manuscripts.
-
You're right. I'm also under the impression that the old system may have been used as a screen for the modern, more logical, system. One interesting exercise that everyone can make with the modern system, in which "The Fool" comes before "The Magus", is putting the cards in pairs, side-by-side, and then try to get some "message" from the cards. Something like this:
- "Fool" & "Magus" = Unconscious VS Conscious / Schizophrenic VS Mystic
- "High Priestess" & "Empress" = Secret (Veiled) Woman VS Fertile Mother / Ancient Crone VS Young Maiden
- "Emperor" & "Hierophant" = Man of Matter VS Man of Spirit / Secular Authority VS Clerical Authority
- "Lovers" & "Chariot" = Challenge/Decision VS Victory over Duality
- etc, etc.
This has been one of the most interesting exercises I've ever made with the Tarot.
I ask you to do it yourselves. I think you'll love it.
Still, concerning the old system, I find it extremely suggestive the fact that you can use hebrew names for the cards, in which the initial letter is the letter corresponding to the Arcanum (according to the Lévi/Papus system). Thus, we have these examples:
(NOT the complete hebrew alphabet, just the most curious correspondences)
- ALEPH is the initial letter of AShP (אשף) which means "Wizard" (The Magician, Atu 1);
- GIMEL is the initial letter of GBYRH (גבירה) which means "Lady" or "Queen" (The Empress, Atu 3);
- HEH is the initial of HGMVN (הגמון) which means "Bishop" (The Hierophant, Atu 5);
- VAV is traditionally considered to be the "abode of feelings" and the "sign of connection", thus corresponding to "The Lovers", Atu 6;
- KAPH is the initial of KCh (כח) which means "Strength" (Atu 11);
- MEM is the initial of MVTh (מות) which means "Death" (Atu 13);
- NUN means "fish" in hebrew, and in Atu 14 we see a watery motif;
- SAMECH is the initial of SMAL (סמאל), Samael, the "Venom of God" (Atu 15, "The Devil");
- QOPH is the initial of QYTz (קיץ) which means "Summer" (may be related to "The Sun", Atu 19);
These are just the correspondences that I find more convincing, and it is because of them that I believe there could be "something more" to the traditional (Lévi/Papus) system than it appears. Any thoughts on this?
P.S.: Most of the previous correspondences were taken from Tarot and the Hebrew Alphabet.
-
@Alrah said
"The book by Idries Shah that I've been reading has a note on the Tarot at the back.
He quotes one Feliciano Busi as saying they were brought to Viterbo as a game of cards from Saracinia "and is called by them Naib". He writes "Naib is an arabic word meaning "deputy" and the material from which the Tarot cards were copied is still extant. It is "deputy" or substitute material, forming an allegory of the teachings of a Sufi master about certain cosmic influences upon humanity. This is divided into four sections, called the turuq (four ways), the word from which "Tarot" is undoubtedly derives."
He goes on to note that the Spanish word naipe (card) derives from the arabic naib, and that "The tarot now known in the west has been influenced by the Cabalistic and Judaizing process, designed to bring it into line with certain doctrines not implicit in the original...the essential cipher element contained in the meaining of the suits and trumps is still Sufi property." (This was published in 1964 btw).
"The pack, as it stands today, is only partially correct because there have been transpositions of the significances of some of the atouts, the trumps or emblematic figures of the pack. This error has been caused by a mistranslation from Arabic of certain words, due to literal conversion into a different culture system. Another factor may be the substitution of one picture for another one. This is not a subject upon which I may be more explicit. Temperance is incorrectly portrayed and interpreted; so is the fiftheen trump; the meaning of the sixteenth trump is a classic case of misunderstanding of a word; the twentieth is wrongly emphasized. Many of the attributions, however, are still in use amongst the Sufis, though in the west the essential associations with Sufi texts have been lost.""
Many Sufi allegories can definitely add insight to the Tarot cards i.e. this snippet on The Chariot from Tales of the Dervishes by Idries Shah:
"Intellect is the ‘vehicle,’ the outward form within which we state where we think we are and what we have to do. The vehicle enables the horse and man to operate. This is what we call tashkil, outward shape or formulation. The horse, which is motive power, is the energy which is called ‘a state of emotion’ or other force. This is needed to propel the chariot. The man, in our illustration, is that which perceives, in a manner superior to the others, the purpose and possibilities of the situation, and who makes it possible for the chariot to move towards and to gain its objective."
As a side note on Idries Shah, he definitely has his critics as well: