BrightEye
In early decks like the Visconti the sequence of trumps is not clear or fixed. The Hebrew alphabet, on the other hand, is a fixed sequence of letters.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hebrew Alphabet & Tarot
Teheuti
I used the word "believe" in the poll question because I think most ideas are actually beliefs. Even an historian "believes" that using rules of logic and an assemblage of facts will result in a story that resembles truth more closely than other methods. I figured it put everyone on an even basis. For instance, if I said "Yes, I believe that Tarot was originally based on the Hebrew alphabet because I saw it in a dream," that would be irrefutable and equally valid with any other belief. In fact, I once had a dream in which I experienced a three-dimensional Tree of Life as the DNA of the universe. It was an incredibly powerful and meaningful dream that words can't convey (numinous is the Jungian term). To me it was a kind of gnosis that doesn't need any external validation or explanation.
I was also curious as to what prompted people's beliefs and hoped that they would express that. I think Ross and others with an historical stance gave interesting explanations of their processes of coming to their beliefs. Moderndayruth was convinced by the synchronicity between the two—and I admire her standing up for that being enough.
I wish the "I don't knows" would explain their stand. Is it is kind of agnosticism or simply from not having studied the subject?
BTW, I answered "No" to the question.
The polls came from curiosity, the desire to get beyond trying to convince others of our various points of view, and to give lurkers the chance to express themselves without explanation (although I love it when they do).
I was also curious as to what prompted people's beliefs and hoped that they would express that. I think Ross and others with an historical stance gave interesting explanations of their processes of coming to their beliefs. Moderndayruth was convinced by the synchronicity between the two—and I admire her standing up for that being enough.
I wish the "I don't knows" would explain their stand. Is it is kind of agnosticism or simply from not having studied the subject?
BTW, I answered "No" to the question.
The polls came from curiosity, the desire to get beyond trying to convince others of our various points of view, and to give lurkers the chance to express themselves without explanation (although I love it when they do).
gregory
I think I did didn't I ? I don't know because I don't FEEL it is true, but I don't think there is - or is ever likely to be - enough evidence either way. I will be happy to do as someone has said, here or in another of these threads, and eat my words if the definitive documents show up.....
Teheuti
Oops - you did state your reason - thanks for pointing that out to me.gregory said:I think I did didn't I ? I don't know because I don't FEEL it is true, but I don't think there is - or is ever likely to be - enough evidence either way.
venicebard
Ross, would you say this about any alphabet, or just the Hebrew?Ross G Caldwell said:We can "know" that Tarot was not originally based on the Hebrew Alphabet as well as we can know most things in distant history - by gathering evidence and drawing conclusions. There are many kinds of evidence, and many methods for evaluating it. In early Tarot's case, all of the evidence is silent on a connection with the Hebrew alphabet, and all of the methods of evaluating the evidence make it implausible that there was a connection.
Don't you think there is a certain symmetry in taking the deck as 40 numbered cards, 16 titled cards, and 22 that are both except for one that lacks a number and one that lacks a title?The Hebrew alphabet has 22 letters; the standard Tarot deck has 21 ordered trumps and a Fool, which are often taken together as 22 Trumps.
What evidence do you have of its being coincidence? or is it an argument from silence?This is the only "connection", and is at the very least a coincidence.
And to say it is the only "connection" overlooks not only the tree-letter symbolism (by bardic numeration) that I have pointed out but which no-one but I will seriously consider, but the even more obvious fit of tarot's structure with the Kabbalistic world-system: four worlds or suits each containing the ten Sefirot and the four letters of the Name, plus 22 letters as letters. Another 'coincidence' to tack onto your list of one.
If the inventor of the sequence noted it, then it can hardly be ascribed to coincidence, now, can it.Thus it cannot be ruled out as a logical possibility that either the inventor of this sequence of cards or an early interpreter noted the coincidence and found it meaningful in some way.
I am somewhat interested in whether or not you think my indirect theory irrational?Any disinterested historian can therefore say with complete confidence, as much as can be expected in history, that the Tarot was not originally based on the Hebrew alphabet. That's the only rational conclusion.
venicebard
This is what indeed makes it unlikely for the connection to be direct. But another perfectly correct numbering system for those times is through their tree-letter 'equivalents', that is, with seven Hebrew semi-vowels and consonants correlated with their vowel-equivalents in bardic, and with three initially problematic correlations carefully reasoned out, namely samekh with Ng (its Canaanite form is ogham Ng* and was used as ñ in the Lycian alphabet of Anatolia), zayin with I (zeta was Zeus’s initial due to breakdown of D by I or Y), and teyt with Aa (by default, and by the fact that the crossed circle suggests the equator, as does Aa the palm):Kilted Kat said:I voted "no."
. . .
The correct system is this:
א =1
ב =2
ג =3
ד =4
ה =5
ו =6
ז =7
ח =8
ט =9
י =10
כ =20
ל =30
מ =40
נ =50
ס =60
ע =70
פ =80
צ =90
ק =100
ר =200
ש =300
ת =400
no number H ח (cheyt)
1 A א
2 E ה
3 I ז
4 O ע
5 B ב
6 M מ
7 P פ
8 Ng ס (samekh)
9 K כ
10 G ג
11 T ת
12 D ד
13 N נ
14 L ל
15 R ר
16 S ש
17 U ו (vav)
18 Kk(Q) ק
19 Ii י
20 Ss צ
21 Aa ט
Thus the willow's overflowing font of spring, S, is LaMaisonDieu overflowing with pollen (the dots), S being a lightning-bolt in most alphabets; and R the elder is LeDiable (to burn elder 'brings the devil in the house', according to English folk-custom); and L the rowan that nurtures young of other species (its rune the eaves of a roof), just as Hebrew lemedh means 'learning', is Temperance; and ash the axe-handle, Grim Reaper of the forest in Aesop's fable about him, is trump XIII; the oak-hero sacrificed at summer solstice is LePendu; the holly of martial discipline is LaForce; and so on.
Oh! [edited to add:] 17 through 21 had to be reconstructed, of course, as the surviving tradition only goes up to 16; but it doesn't take rocket science to see that U the heather of summer is L'Etoille and Ii the mistletoe or Golden Bough is LeSoleil and Aa the palm of distant climes is LeMonde and Ss the blackthorn, whose name is straif or strife in the bethluisnion, is the battle taking place in LeJugement and that Q the apple, therefore, is LaLune (the 18 months mother and fetus share before she 'bears fruit').
*Actually, I mean the coeval ogam-consaine Ng, since the later ogham Ng had its three cross-strokes slanted, not straight.
The crowned one
With the key being "from the beginning" I am 100% no.
Alan Ross
I voted "no." I have only a casual acquaintance with tarot history, gleaned from such sources as Place, Huson, Giles, and a few sites devoted to the history of playing cards and tarot (e.g. Andy's Playing Cards). However, based on what I've read, it just doesn't seem reasonable to me to believe that the tarot was originally based on the Hebrew alphabet. I believe that a connection with the Hebrew alphabet was grafted onto the tarot by a succession of occultists from the 18th Century on, who devoted a lot of ingenuity and imagination to make it work. And when they couldn't quite get the shoe to fit, they altered the foot.
Alan
Alan
Debra
I'm with Ross on this, exactly.
SolSionnach
I third Ross. Beautifully put.
(yes, my vote was "no")
(yes, my vote was "no")
