Hebrew letter Tarot correlations

kwaw

The mystical symbolism of the letter Gimel and its correlations to the Tarot card the Popess.

In the Popess I see the image of the Gevirah, Lady and Queen of the Sabbath and Gan [garden - used as a figure of speech for 'bride' in the bible and in kabbalistic traditions]. Gevirah is the title of the Priestess in the heretical kabbalah of the Frankists into whose body is drawn down the divine influx of the Shekinah [there are some very strong similarities between Frankism and modern Wicca]. Shekinah is the GAV, the majesty of Israel, carried into exile [GLA] until she along with Israel are redeemed [GAL - redemption, used in relation to redemption from Egypt, from bondage, from exile] . As Lady and Queen Mother she is Binah and Malkuth, the two aspects of the Shekinah, the Queen of the Sabbath; Matrona and Maiden.

Among other meanings Gimel means 'camel' and 'weaning' and in the SY is attributed to Jupiter [this varies in late redactions], significator of benevolence, wealth and wisdom. The shape of the letter is said to be of 'a rich man running after a poor man [the Dalet] to share with him his wealth'.

In some decks of the Italian tradition, tarot II is called 'Juno'. The Roman Goddess Juno was the sister and wife of Jupiter. She was called Queen of Heaven and of womanhood. She was said to accompany every woman through life from birth to death and it was she who 'makes the child see the light of day'. The festival of Matronalia was held on March 1 in her honour (when the Sun is in Pisces, ruled by Jupiter). On the card she is usually portrayed full figure. She holds in her left hand a staff that extends above the top of the picture and may be the shaft of a lance or spear (Juno is classically portrayed with a weapon). Her right hand is extended and points down with a sleight bend of the elbow. Her left leg is also bent and a peacock is on the ground behind her. Her stance resembles a swastika and which is also called the stance of 'Isis Mourning'. Isis is the Egyptian 'Queen of Heaven' and she mourns the death of Osiris whose body has been dismembered, the One into Many.

On other decks the figure is of a female figure seated, in some modern decks she may be called 'the priestess', in older version the 'female pope (La Papess) which some relate to the legend of Pope Joan (Joan-Juno?). She may hold in her lap an open book, taken among other things, a mercurial symbol. There is considered to be a close connection between Isis and Hermes/Thoth within a variety of 'esoteric' schools. In some decks [Knapp/Egyptian] she has the symbol of Mercury on her breast. Mercury is the 'inferior' planet to Jupiter, the signs they rule being opposite each other in the zodiac. Placed here on the lap or at the breast of the female figure may symbolise Mercury as 'child' and allude to the figure of Madonna and Child. A figure most commonly recognised in the portrayal of Mary and the baby Jesus that is derived from Egyptian portrayals of Isis and the child Horus. The idea of the child may be seen as a reference to the Son or Vau of YHVH. The Vau between the two Heh which represent the upper and lower Shekinah [Binah and Malkuth]. It is also relevant to the meaning of Gimel as 'weaning'.

Weaning is often a painful process for a child. The mother too, who nonetheless must be determined, though her determination may make her appear at times hard and cold. To a child the first steps towards independence such as in being separated from its mother can be an utterly desolate experience and the child inconsolable in its distress. Juno was in many respects a 'cruel' goddess; but here we may recall the old 'cruel to be kind' adage. The 'priestess' is a teacher and initiator. Her duty is to invest us with those qualities, attributes and powers of the mind, body and soul that equip us for the rite of passage from one level or stage in our lives to the next. It is these powers and attributes invested in us that are the gifts of the 'wealthy man', not gold or rubies. For what are rubies compared to wisdom and understanding?

In respect to the connection of Gimel with 'Wealth', or 'Wisdom' that is the greater 'wealth', Aesop's fable of the Peacock and Juno may be relevant. "

THE PEACOCK made complaint to Juno that, while the nightingale pleased every ear with his song, he himself no sooner opened his mouth than he became a laughingstock to all who heard him. The Goddess, to console him, said, "But you far excel in beauty and in size. The splendour of the emerald shines in your neck and you unfold a tail gorgeous with painted plumage." "But for what purpose have I," said the bird, "this dumb beauty so long as I am surpassed in song?' "The lot of each," replied Juno, "has been assigned by the will of the Fates--to thee, beauty; to the eagle, strength; to the nightingale, song; to the raven, favourable, and to the crow, unfavourable auguries. These are all contented with the endowments allotted to them."

We may relate the fable to the concept of wealth/wisdom in that, although dissatisfied with its lot the Peacock is nonetheless endowed with those gifts, attributes and powers that are to sufficient to fulfil its nature. From which we may consider that the gift of the 'wealthy man' is not in gold and rubies but is a metaphor for the powers and attributes physical, mental and spiritual that are required to fulfil our nature.

The myth of Io may also be relevant in that both Mercury and the Peacock figure in it. Jupiter fell in love with Io, a priestess in the temple of Juno. Jupiter descended upon Io in the form of a cloud. Juno became suspicious and found out and to protect Io from Juno's jealous wrath Jupiter changed Io into a heifer. Juno was not deceived by the disguise however and asked Jupiter to give the heifer to her as a present. She placed Io, still in the form of a heifer, under the guard of Argus Panoptes "who sees all”, as he was a giant who was "all eyes". Some eyes always remained opened even when Argos slept so that he remained 'ever watchful'. Jupiter asked Mercury to help Io escape. Mercury disguised himself as a shepherd's boy and made friends with Argus. He succeeded in charming the giant to sleep and close all his eyes with the sound of his flute and then cut off his head. To honour Argus Juno placed his eyes on the tail of the Peacock. The wheel shape of the Peacocks tail when fanned is said to symbolise the sky; its 'eyes' the starry vault of heaven. The head of the all seeing has been separated from its body and its eyes distributed from the One to Many. In Judaic kabbalah Stars are said to symbolise souls as 'sparks of God'. The souls of all those to be incarnated are said to be 'on a curtain before God', which Hermetic Qabalists have called the 'Peacock Veil of ISIS'. Io is said to have went into exile in Egypt, where she became a priestess of Isis.

The peacock is also a symbol of wholeness, in that it combines all colours when it spreads out its tail in a fan. It is frequently portrayed with a serpent in its mouth and the beauty of its plumage was considered to have resulted from the transformation of the poison it had absorbed in its battle with the serpent. The Peacock was originally sacred to Pan, but he gave it over to Juno. "Peacocks" in Hebrew is TVVSYM = 131, which is also the number of Pan [transliterated into Hebrew]. 131 is the number of Samael, the Poison of God or Blind God, a title of the Angel of Death. Melek Taus, the Peacock Angel of the Yezidi 'who existed before all other creatures" is also know as Azrael the angel of death, and was depicted with a number of eyes on its wings. While the Peacock may represent 'death' as the 'retribution' of God, it is also symbolic of the immortality of the soul. Possibly the symbolism of the transformation of poison (death) is related here to Alchemy as a process of spiritual transformation. The 'serpent' before the fall was said to be in the form of a camel/gimel [or in some versions rode on the back of an animal having a form like the form of a camel]. The 'serpent' Satan is identified in Jewish literature with Samael and in relation to the correspondences to Pan we have here some esoteric relation to the figure of Satan as a Pan like figure in medieval iconagraphy. Eve, the human feminine, corresponds to the divine feminine the Shekinah. The gift of the Peacock to Juno is here analogous with the serpent Satan's gift to Eve [life in Hebrew], the gift of death.

The divine appellation of Gimel [GAL] means 'God of Retribution and Redemption', and we may note the darker side of the Goddess as nemesis, and that Juno and ISIS for example both have cruel and vengeful aspects. Juno in particular, as a figure of Jealousy, Vengeance and Wrath, may be said to have much in common with the Old Testament YHVH. However, Juno is also she 'who makes the child see the light of day'; and the connection of Madonna and Child with this card symbolises the manifestation of the Holy Spirit [the Shikinah] and a means of reparation and redemption. The Child Horus is to seek reparation for the death of Osiris, and Christ reparation for the sins of man. Continuing the theme of Retribution and Reparation by Aiq Kbr Gimel 3 = Lamed (30) which is attributed to the card 'Justice', and to Shin (300) which is attributed to 'Judgement'.

The divine femine, the Shekinah, is also identified with Wisdom sofia. As she was identified with the 'congregation of Israel' and with the Torah in Judaism, she became identified with the 'church' in Christianity and the portrayal of La Papessa in the Marseille pattern is probably a reflection of that. In modern 'occultist' redactions we seem to be going backwards in reference to time as we move forwards. In RWS she holds the Torah, with which wisdom is identified in Ben Sirah, in modern pagan decks to antiquity with a Priestess of a Pagan Goddess of Wisdom and Fertility.

Kwaw
 

jmd

Much of what you write is always wonderful to read, kwaw.

In this case, there is certainly a great amount in your post which, to my eyes, makes even more sense if one connects Gimel and its various attributions to the Empress.

With the Empress, what may be seen, as possibly a modified depiction of Isis, is a representation of her son Horus on her lap - though abstracted as the emblem of a shield.

With regards to the change in what I tend to characterise as a 'Swiss' pattern (from Papess and Pope to Juno and Jupiter), this only shows that as one moves further away from what may have been carefully constructed iconography, other considerations may enter which may lead one in other directions - directions also, of course, well worth investigating...

So, Gimel, as letter which also means 'three' and 'third', and also given some of the other considerations of various words and evoking concepts, is well applied to the Empress... just to give the alternative.

As a side note, I personally do think that Mark Filipas's essay (The Alphabetic Masquerade) has yet to achieve the due recognition it deserves. To my mind, if looked at carefully without prejudging what correlations - if any - are to be made between Hebrew letters and the Major Arcana, the rapport is more than quite stunning, and only confirms (and 'corrects') the suspicion or note by 19th century esotericists that there may indeed be a 'natural' correlation.

This is not to say that the Tarot was designed with this in mind, but rather that the pattern, as it arises in the Marseilles, reflects, in addition to its myriad other important aspects, also the Hebrew alphabet in ordinal sequence.
 

Diana

jmd said:
As a side note, I personally do think that Mark Filipas's essay (The Alphabetic Masquerade) has yet to achieve the due recognition it deserves.

Wait till he translates it into French and disseminates it in the French tarot world.... (or has it already been done and I am not aware of this.)

I suspect it will achieve the fame it deserves.
 

kwaw

jmd said:

So, Gimel, as letter which also means 'three' and 'third', and also given some of the other considerations of various words and evoking concepts, is well applied to the Empress... just to give the alternative.

There are numerous complications in suggesting a one to one correspondence based on numbers.

A correspondence based upon cardinal numbers is not possible because the Hebrew characters go up in units, tens and hundreds from 1 to 400 whereas the tarot are numbered in a sequence of units from I to XX1 and one card without a number. therefore the correlation breaks down after 10/X.

An ordinal sequence is not possible because although we may consider the tarot sequence I to XXI as an ordinal series 'first' to 'twenty-first', Gimel though the 'third' letter for example does not mean third as you state above it means three, Kaph does not mean 11th it means 20.

The problem with making this one-to-one correspondence between an ordinal sequence [I-XXI+1 without number] and cardinal [alef-tau] is that it wouldn't prove any case as it can be argued that strictly defined the first cardinal number is two, not one. As Jasper Hopkins notes in his translation of De Coniecturis by Nicholas de Cusa, 1442:

"Although oneness [unitas] is not a number but is, rather, the source of all number, nevertheless for purpose of calculation the unit [unitas] is considered as being part of the number series and as being a number. For Nicholas, as for the ancients, number in the strict sense is always plural, because a number [of things] is always more than one."

As we are discussing here metaphysical speculation and not arithmetical calculation it could be argued I think that we apply the strict definition; as those in 15th century Italy such as Nicholas de Cusa applied it and as it had been applied in this neo-platonic, pythagorean form since at least the time of Proclus. Though a concept many of us maybe unfamilar with today it was common knowledge to anyone with an education at the time and taught as part of arithmetic [see for example: Michael Masi's translation of the Boethe's De Institutione Arithmetica

We may note in similar vein that in kabbalah the hebrew letters correspond to the Sefiroth according to their number values Alef - 1 to Kether, Beth - 2 to Chokmah, Gimel - 3, etc. And in many Judaic kabbalistic texts from the 13th century upto the present day Keter - Alef - One is described not as first, but as Ayin/Nothing, and Chokmah - Beth - two is called the first sefirah.

If we were to make such a correspondence therefore there is a valid case for one [alef], not being a number, to correspond to the card without a number, and two [beth] to correspond to the first .


As a side note, I personally do think that Mark Filipas's essay (The Alphabetic Masquerade) has yet to achieve the due recognition it deserves. To my mind, if looked at carefully without prejudging what correlations - if any - are to be made between Hebrew letters and the Major Arcana, the rapport is more than quite stunning, and only confirms (and 'corrects') the suspicion or note by 19th century esotericists that there may indeed be a 'natural' correlation.

While not a scholar as a layman I agree Mark's work is very impressive and from a layman's perspective seems to me to offer sufficient evidence for further investigation and critical evaluation and appraisal.

Kwaw
 

jmd

You are quite right that the numbers as correlated cannot be by ordinal value, for, as both of us have before mentioned, the values of all letters above Yod cease their ordinal order.

Though it is also correct that in the history of mathematics 'one' was not considered a number, but rather the source of numbers, this did not mean it was not 'one'. Rather that the first number - considered as number - was 'two' (in however it may be written, whether as Beta, Beit, II, 2, etc).

Also, there is a strict and adhered to ordinal sequence in the Alef-Beit, the point being that this same sequence, with similarly adhered to values where possible (ie, up to ten), is reflected in the Major Arcana if using the Marseilles sequence with the un-numbered card placed last.

It should be also recalled that not only was 'one' not considered a number, but the generator of numbers, but that more importantly 'zero' was the negation of any number.

This may, if one wants to go down that reflective avenue, lead some to also reflect that as 'Ain Soph' speaks of negation ('Ain'), this gives further credence to numbering the Fool as zero. This, to me, seems both mathematically and esoterically incorrect - but to each their own, and our collective reflections add to our individual understanding.

In the quote above, I obviously omitted a small copula: I meant to say that Gimel also means 'three' and IS 'third'. The point being that it makes, to my mind at least, more sense and clarity for the sequences to be so linked. As ordinal sequence, of course, the correlation does not break down at all... the only card left (the Fool), is naturally placed in the only remaining ordinal position, as twenty-second.

As you have already shown, however, there are other wonderful ways in which reflection gives rise to varying considerations.
 

kwaw

jmd said:


Though it is also correct that in the history of mathematics 'one' was not considered a number, but rather the source of numbers, this did not mean it was not 'one'. Rather that the first number - considered as number - was 'two' (in however it may be written, whether as Beta, Beit, II, 2, etc).

Also, there is a strict and adhered to ordinal sequence in the Alef-Beit, the point being that this same sequence, with similarly adhered to values where possible (ie, up to ten), is reflected in the Major Arcana if using the Marseilles sequence with the un-numbered card placed last.

It should be also recalled that not only was 'one' not considered a number, but the generator of numbers, but that more importantly 'zero' was the negation of any number.

I did not say that 'one' is not 'one', only as you say and agree not strictly a 'number'. Yes, one was considered the source, or as you put it 'generator' of numbers. Alef - one was also equated with 'ain' nothing, and in the Judeo-Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilio all 'things' are created from 'nothing', jut as all numbers are generated from 'one'. I did not equate nothing with zero, because from previous posts I am aware that people are apt to confuse the mathematical zero with the metaphysical and you end up with sterile semantic arguments. Although as long as one distinguishes between the two and understand that all in the discussion are aware of the pertinent qualifications I think it is acceptable short-hand [Gershom Scholem for one speaks of Ain as zero in this respect]. The zero, ain, negation stuff we have already discussed in another thread and I don't see any point in repeating the same arguments.


This may, if one wants to go down that reflective avenue, lead some to also reflect that as 'Ain Soph' speaks of negation ('Ain'), this gives further credence to numbering the Fool as zero. This, to me, seems both mathematically and esoterically incorrect - but to each their own, and our collective reflections add to our individual understanding.


What we consider mathematically or esoterically correct or incorrect is beside the point. If we wish to hypothesise there is a pre-occultist historical connection between the tarot and the kabbalah the question is not our own interpretations but the statements of the kabbalists of the period at the time and how these may or may not correlate with the symbolism of the tarot, and parallels they have within Christian thought that speak of a mutual influence or similarity of mystical experience and exegesis.

Rabbi Yizhac od Acre wrote:
"He who is granted this supreme degree, with divine help, to contemplate the Nought [ayin], his intellect is effaced and he is like a dumb man...".

Dionyseus the Arepagite wrote:
"The mystic must leave behind all things, both in the sensible world and the intellible, till he enters into the darkness or knowing nothing...Our highest knowledge of God consists in mystic ignorance."

Meister Eckhart:
"God is not seen except by blindness, nor known except by ignorance, nor understood except by fools."

"There is in the soul something which is above the soul, Divine, simple, a pure nothing;".

The idea of becoming a Nought, and thereby being able to draw down the divine influx, is a basic premise within ecstatic and magical models of kabbalah between the 13th and 19th century, anda metaphorical equation between 'nought' and 'fool' is common. My point is not that this correlation between these concepts and the tarot was made, but only that the theoretical possibilities are not historically anachronistic.


As you have already shown, however, there are other wonderful ways in which reflection gives rise to varying considerations.

Exactly, and having established and agreed such, it is apparent that any correlation based on the fact that Gimel = 3 and the Empress = III is a very weak or at least indeterminate basis for claiming there is a stronger correlation between the meanings and esoteric symbolism of the letter Gimel and the iconagraphy of the Empress. Having rejected the number claim as being a 'strong' factor may I ask for the sake of completeness and balance what other factors appear to you to make a stronger (as you put it) case for a correlation with the letter Gimel and the Empress rather than the Papesse? Both in respect to those I make in my post that you say appear to you to be more applicable to the Empress and any additional comments on the meaning and symbolism of the letter that you care to contribute yourself?

I am not trying to dictate a case here but only contributing my understanding and notes on the symbolism of the letters which I don't deny will have been influenced in their selection by my own veiwpoint and prejudices, and as such would very much appreciate the response and contribution of someone from a different school of thought to provide a balance and different perspective.

Thanks
Kwaw
 

filipas

Mark wrote:
Several of the meanings we Tarotists associate with the 22 letter names are completely erroneous, such as lamed meaning "ox-goad" (which it does not), and tzaddi meaning "fish-hook" (which it does not)
kwaw wrote:
Aryeh Kaplan in the table on p8 of his translation and commentary on the Sefer Yetzira under the column head 'signification of the names [of the letters] gives Ox-goad for Lamed. . . Aryeh Kaplan also gives 'fish-hook' for TzDI [Tzadi] and 'snake' for Teth.
If you are saying that this chart confirms these to be the literal meaning of the letter names, then may I suggest that you look closer into the sources from which such charts derive. Kaplan was renowned in his field but one still needs to keep his thinking cap on, as books do contain errors. First of all, anyone (even those not readily familiar with Hebrew) can look up the Hebrew letter names for themselves and see that the column headed "Signification of the names" is in error (assuming here that "Signification" was intended to mean 'literal meaning'). It really is as simple as that. You won't find Kaplan's text itself contradicting what I've said about the literal meanings.

Secondly, we need to understand that charts such as the one shown on page 8 of Kaplan's book (and in books on occult Tarot) derive from the less-then-scholarly (at least by today's standards) linguistic studies of earlier centuries, studies which promulgated highly speculative histories of alphabet evolution and imaginative letter associations. An excellent and detailed source on these topics is 'The Alphabetic Labyrinth' by Johanna Drucker (Thames and Hudson), which I highly recommend to everyone interested in these threads.

Thanks,
- Mark
 

filipas

kwaw wrote:
There are numerous complications in suggesting a one to one correspondence based on numbers.
There is really only one such complication, and that is that a one-to-one numeric correspondence simply does not exist. Period.

If we attempt a correspondence such as that of Levi, we have a numeric correspondence from 1 through 10 but then the correspondence disappears. If we attempt a correspondence such as that of Mathers or the Golden Dawn, we have no numeric correspondence whatsoever. The lack of numeric reciprocity between these two "data sets" means that any argument for correspondences based upon number is of no relevance to the card historian.

kwaw wrote:
An ordinal sequence is not possible because although we may consider the tarot sequence I to XXI as an ordinal series 'first' to 'twenty-first', Gimel though the 'third' letter for example does not mean third as you state above it means three, Kaph does not mean 11th it means 20.
You are mixing apples (i.e., ordinal sequence) with oranges (i.e., numeric values) here, and so the above statement makes no sense. There certainly is ordinal sequence to the letters--it is alternatively called the alphabetic sequence.

kwaw wrote:
The problem with making this one-to-one correspondence between an ordinal sequence [I-XXI+1 without number] and cardinal [alef-tau] is that it wouldn't prove any case
To be clear, alef-to-tau is an ordinal sequence; each of the letters also has a cardinal value.

And you may be misunderstanding the basis of the letter-to-trump correspondences I am pointing to. The correlation is not that of ordinal sequence itself; if it was, my case would be as meaningful as if I had proposed a correlation between the 22 letters and the first 22 pages of 'War and Peace', or a correlation between the 22 Marseilles allegories and the first 22 inches of a yardstick. Rather, the correlations are specifically those of lexical parallel, letterform parallel, and letter name parallel. Debates over number and sequence are entirely moot since neither of these offers a body of correlations.

Thanks,
- Mark
 

kwaw

filipas said:
If you are saying that this chart confirms these to be the literal meaning of the letter names, then may I suggest that you look closer into the sources from which such charts derive. - Mark

I did not say in the post from which you are quoting that these are literal meanings of the names of the letters. Later in the post I give some possible speculations as to where these associated meanings as they are used in kabbalah derive, which are not necessarily errors of post de gebelin linguists. Apart from LMD, which has both the form of and is the root of ox-goad [MLMD] and described as such in lexicons as explained in my post, some of the meanings are not derived from the literal root but are based on the form of the letter [which as a symbol has 'meaning' too, as well as the literal meaning of the name], and some are derived from kabbalistic exegesis of the name and/or form which is not the invention of western occultists but are to be found used with those meanings in Judaic kabbalisitic texts from the 13th century on. As specialist meanings within kabbalah, derived from exegesis, such meanings though attested to and used in kabbalistic texts are not neccesarily going to be found in a dictionary - that does not mean that they do not have these meanings in kabbalistic traditions. While you may not find the name of the letter Hei [in any of its versions - HA, HH or HY] in any dictionary to mean 'window' the fact is it is used to mean 'window' within a number of kabbalist texts. Words often have alternative meanings in specialist fields that may or may not end up in a non-specialist dictionary. I have given some example of these associated or derived meanings in my post re: Tzaddi/fish hook and others. I am not saying you are anyway incorrect to point out that these are not the literal meanings of the names, only that in doing so you have only provided half the story, but are right of course in that it is unfortunate that some of these meanings have been misunderstood to be literal meanings of the names of the letters when they are not.

Kwaw
 

jmd

There are numerous quotes in addition to the ones given for considering how the states of 'divine ignorance', being as a fool, and the ruptuousness of the mystic state obliterates normal senses.

These add to considerations of the Fool, if one wants to make these comparisons, being un-numbered... and being the highest stage attainable in the journey (not the beginning of the journey).

With regards to Mark Filipas's comment that 'debates over number and sequence are entirely moot since neither of these offers a body of correlations', the very ordinal correlative sequence between the Atouts and Mark's own lexical analysis adds to the likelihood of the correctness of the same. I am only re-stating in a different form Mark's own words here.

As we each consider in various ways the works of the ancients, indeed of the Tanakh and the New Testament, of those writing in late antiquity, and of those works up to and including the sixteenth (& perhaps seventeenth and later?) centuries, then though it is important in the sense that these bring to light certain ways of shifting our own views of the world to views either closer to the times or closer to ways to spiritually engage with the world, various considerations may be correlated.

To my personal reflection, these are wonderful... but have yet to see how they provide justification for G.D. type attributions over and above already presuming the correctness of the same.

With the quote given by kwaw, ie:
  • Rabbi Yizhac od Acre wrote:
    "He who is granted this supreme degree, with divine help, to contemplate the Nought [ayin], his intellect is effaced and he is like a dumb man...".
  • Dionyseus the Arepagite wrote:
    "The mystic must leave behind all things, both in the sensible world and the intellible, till he enters into the darkness or knowing nothing...Our highest knowledge of God consists in mystic ignorance."
  • Meister Eckhart:
    "God is not seen except by blindness, nor known except by ignorance, nor understood except by fools."

    "There is in the soul something which is above the soul, Divine, simple, a pure nothing;"
and reading these both in the context of their respective texts and general considerations outside of Tarot presumed correlations, I would personally consider that here are examples of the height and end of the mystical or merkabah journey of ascent.

Once having made such reflections, and returning to Tarot's imagery, does not this suggest the exalted place of the Fool?

...and also, does this not rather indicate an ascent instead of the presumed descent also presumed for the Tarot by the G.D.'s allocation of the Atouts upon the Tree of Life? ... but undoubtedly that is another topic.