Alef = I-Bateleur or = Fou ?

[Umbrae]

...though possibly you can come up with some examples to prove me wrong?

Sorry. I'm not about 'proving' somebody right or wrong. That's not why we're here.

We're here to learn, and perhaps enjoy ourselves while we do it.

Me? I'm interested in standards. When did it become a 'standard' to number AND sequence the Fool as 0? If I knew, I'd not be asking...unless you can prove me wrong...Wahahahaha.

BTW: Ninteenth Century IMO is modern.

 

[kwaw]

Sorry. I'm not about 'proving' somebody right or wrong. That's not why we're here.

BTW: Ninteenth Century IMO is modern.

Sorry Umbrae, you made a statement about scholars 'confused' by the 'obfuscation' of the fool which in your opinion [though stated as fact which apparently no one is welcomed to challenge] is modern [by which you clarify above as 19th century], wondered what you based it upon. Didn't realise it was a crime to ask people to clarify or back up their statements. Like you I am here to learn, not sure how that is possible if we are not allowed to ask questions or people are so sensitive they get upset when we do. All I asked was clarification on what you considered modern and a more open question to everyone about 'when did numbers first appear on the fool'? So if your view of modern is 19th century, then your statement that the numbering of the fool is modern is inaccurate, though probably more accurate if we consider as to when it became 'standard', as you later qualify the statement?

I would agree the numbering of the fool [for example as 0 in some Italian decks and XXII in some belgium] did not become 'standard' as such until the 19th century. I was wondering though in which decks numbering of the fool first appears?

Me? I'm interested in standards. When did it become a 'standard' to number AND sequence the Fool as 0? If I knew, I'd not be asking...unless you can prove me wrong...Wahahahaha.

But you didn't ask, you stated it is a modern obfuscation, I asked, and just get hostility in reply.

Kwaw

 

[filipas]

I went to the site for filipas's Book-which until today I have not seen. The site says to go to Tarot.com to purchase the book and the link does not work. I would love to purchase the book- does anyone know how? ~Rosanne

Hi Rosanne,

It appears that Tarot.com no longer offers the book for download; it has been a few years since I last touched base with them so I'm not sure what the reason for that is. As this has been an ongoing (though on-and-off) research project for me, I've also had concerns that the book, published about 4 years ago, does not necessarily contain the latest updates, findings and essays. This was why I later added a page to my website (The Pasteboard Masquerade) where I could post updates at my leisure; there you will find the book's main thesis, its Hebrew word lists, and several essays not included in the book. That page, called Exploring the Alphabetic Tarot, can be found here:

http://www.spiritone.com/~filipas/Masquerade/Essays/allusion.html

The primary focus of the book itself was a detailed attempt to reconstruct how each Marseilles trump would likely have been seen by an early viewer or card designer, had they understood there to be an alphabetical basis underlying its sequence and iconography. The book is therefore more in the "esoteric Tarot" realm, whereas the web site focuses on the historical questions raised.

I'm undecided as to if or how I might make the book readily available again. For now, I hope the web site satisfies!

Thanks.
-Mark

 

[Rosanne]

Hi Mark, Thanks very much for your site. You get a 'High Mark' from me as I have been on this trail for a year now; and your thoughts expressed on this fascinating subject strike me as that 'aha' moment of recognition. I also think that before the 22 letters became the Hebrew alphabet they were a "sacred statement of how the Heavens were- and it was all about the Earth, our Home and the Moon our benevolent guide" (from a friend who has been helping me on the Alphabet trail)and then fitted Hebrew thought as a lexicon. Thanks again for your reply and site ~Rosanne

 

[jmd]

The Schär deck is both quite unusual and interesting, and one we but only briefly discussed on an earlier thread - one is left to wonder:

• when the deck was actually printed from those 1750 woodcuts, and whether the numbering is therefore possibly a later addition;
  
  
• why the Hindo-arabic zero was added to an otherwise more standardly Roman numbered deck; and
  
  
• what influences played upon such numbering.

Perhaps - simply perhaps, a non-Tarot Italian deck such as the Mantegna was one of the influences.

If there is a more intrinsic Kabalistic correspondence between deck and letter with Alef-Bateleur correlations, this deck may simply show its ignorance of the same.

Conversely, of course, it may lead to reflections that somewhat support Golden Dawn-type views.

 

[kwaw]

The Schär deck is both quite unusual and interesting, and one we but only briefly discussed on an earlier thread -

[*]why the Hindo-arabic zero was added to an otherwise more standardly Roman numbered deck; and


[*]what influences played upon such numbering.[/list]
Perhaps - simply perhaps, a non-Tarot Italian deck such as the Mantegna was one of the influences.

If there is a more intrinsic Kabalistic correspondence between deck and letter with Alef-Bateleur correlations, this deck may simply show its ignorance of the same.

Conversely, of course, it may lead to reflections that somewhat support Golden Dawn-type views.

It may merely reflect that the fool was considered the lowest in rank, as it does in Mantegna, Sola Busca and some german cards - when it was clearly marked in a sequence, generally up until the Belgium decks defined as lowest.

The change in the Belgium decks is possibly related to the development of the modern version of the tarot game [deckers type III] in which the fool scores the highest points [as it does in the card game euchre, with which the 'joker' was introduced into the standard playing decks]. This modern version became very popular in central Europe and was possibly a market the Belgium manufacturers sought to tap into.

However, back to the Schar: if the fool was considered lower, why was the need to place a zero on it? That is, why point out a fact that was generally taken for granted anyway and not just leave it blank as was custom?

Perhaps its place in the sequence wasn't taken for granted or was custom, but was thought of as 21 trumps plus the fool. Perhaps there was a point to emphasise that while there are 21+fool, the fool is still part of the sequence. The arabic zero still retains a sense of seperation or difference with the 21 roman numbered, while emphasising that nonetheless it does have a place in the sequence and comes before I, the first.

The fact that the trumps were considered as 21 + the fool has frequently been used to argue against the concept of a correlation between the trumps as there are no longer the required 22. But the 21+fool division fits the symbolism of the letters even better than a straightforward group of 22. That is because in the legend of the letters that form part of their symbolic attributes G-d asked each letter in turn, starting at the last and working backwards, to explain why they should be first in creation. However when he gets to Beit he chooses it, so aleph doesn't get the chance to explain why it should be first in creation.

So there are 21 letters that speak to G-d, and aleph that remains silent. So just as in the tarot there are 21 trumps and the fool, so among the letters there are 21 who speak and one who remains silent. While Beit then becomes the beginning in creation, nonetheless aleph remains the first letter of the alphabet; just as the zero on the fool emphasises its place before that marked first in the sequence of trumps, while through the difference of arabic and roman numbers making a distinction between itself and the other 21.

21 trumps + fool = 21 letters who spoke to God and one who was silent before G-d [a legend which incorporates both the reasoning behind Beit being the beginning or first in creation and aleph being a silent letter].

So perhaps the designer of the Schar, if he was Kabbalistically motivated, felt it necessary to include the zero to emphasise that while in a sense seperate it nonetheless has its place in the sequence, while the bateleur begins the numbered trumps the fool is still the first in the sequence; just as though beit was the beginning of creation aleph still is first in the alphabet.

As for the numerical anamoly as a result of this arrangement which causes people so much problems, examples of such are in the bible. For example proverbs 30:15, "three things are insatibable, four never say enough" which then goes on to list four things that are insatiable and never say enough. Of such numerical saying the commentary to the tanack translation in the Hebrew Study Bible says:

"When two numbers are mentioned in parallel, the second number is usually what is really meant. Sometimes the numbered items are followed by a supernumeray item which represents the extreme or surprising case. Numerical sayings are common in the bible and other Canaanite literature."

Kwaw

 

[Umbrae]

Aleister Crowley, in the Book of Thoth, page 17 states:

“…It seems hardly possible to define these terms in such a way as to make their meaning clear to the student. He must discover for himself by constant practice what they mean to him. It does not even follow that he will arrive at the same ideas. This will not mean that one mind is right and the other wrong, because each one of us has his owns universe all to himself, and it is not the same as anybody else’s universe. The moon that A. sees is not the moon that B., standing by him, sees.

…But if A. and B. look at a picture in a gallery, it is very much not the same picture to both, because A’s mind has been trained to observe it by his experience of thousand of other picture; B. has probably seen an entirely different set of pictures…

…There is no right or wrong about any matter whatsoever. This is true, even in matters of the strictest science. The scientific description of an object is universally true; and yet it is not completely true to any single observer.

Seems to me, that Aleph is Le Bateleur.

Seems to me, that Aleph is Le Fou.

In gaming, many modern Tarrok, Tarrochi, and Tarot packs do not number Le Fou. Numbering Le Fou as 0 as a standard, appears to be the English/American schools of Occult (with a few exceptions). When looking though modern decks at my disposal, decks from the continent by a large majority, mark Le Mat as Shin. However this is opinion based on observation. And I’m too lazy to count and define a statistic.

My conclusion, based on (once again) the large number of decks at my disposal, is that there are two schools of thought. The European and the English/American.

Is one right and one wrong? Is the answer near as important as knowing to which school we belong?

My school colors are silver and green.

 

[filipas]

In [M]Lamed Ox Goad it is of the teacher who spurs on and directs the student [who submits to his authority and discipline]. Mark uses roots elsewhere, I don't know why he finds this one unacceptable.

It is perfectly acceptable as philosophical letter exegesis, as are all of your essays on letter associations.

As you know, my thesis is not about juxtaposing the trumps to these kinds of associations but rather about juxtaposing them to the lexicon. I am essentially positing that the designers(s) of the Marseilles or proto-Marseilles pattern utilized the medieval Hebrew lexicon in their scheme for that sequence and iconography.

In regards to the word MLMD, therefore, we find that A) its position in that lexicon would mean a juxtaposition not with the Hanged Man but with the 13th trump (Death), and B) its meaning of 'oxgoad' offers no iconographic "hit", either to Trump XII or to Trump XIII.

Aryeh Kaplan lists these meanings in his table of hebrew letter meanings in his Sefer Yetzira, and I don't think he comes under the description of a 'Gentile' with pretensions to a knowledge of Hebrew. Mark is correct to say that these meanings do not derive from the names of these letters [at least not in Hebrew] and to correct any misunderstanding that this is so; however to imply that these meanings are down to the errors of hermetic or christian cabbalists or 18th and 19th linguists is to perpetuate an error himself.

Not so; erroneous meanings were indeed passed down by - and in some cases, seem to have originated within - many of those works. See, for example, Johanna Drucker's The Alphabetic Labyrinth where some of this development can be seen. And remember, my comments are in regards to the letter-names, not letter associations.

Let's again highlight the distinction between philosophical letter exegesis (by early linguists and by esoteric writers past and present) and erroneous Hebrew letter-name meanings (which have been perpetuated in writings of both groups, to one degree or another).

Thanks,
- Mark

 

[kwaw]

In regards to the word MLMD, therefore, we find that A) its position in that lexicon would mean a juxtaposition not with the Hanged Man but with the 13th trump (Death), and B) its meaning of 'oxgoad' offers no iconographic "hit", either to Trump XII or to Trump XIII.

My point was about the meaning of Lamed as 'ox goad' which you imply is an error of certain schools of linguistics and non-jewish cabbala. I merely point out that according to a tract of the Talmud 'ox goad' is the meaning of the name Lamed, a letter name the Talmud suggests [whether erroneously or not I don't know] originated as an Egyptian word. I think this meaning of the name, which has the authority of the Talmud, is highly relevant when for example Rabbi Ginsburg describes its action in the world as 'The power to direct and control the animal instinct', given that it falls in place with 'fortitude' if we take alef - fool.

Not so; erroneous meanings were indeed passed down by - and in some cases, seem to have originated within - many of those works. See, for example, Johanna Drucker's The Alphabetic Labyrinth where some of this development can be seen. And remember, my comments are in regards to the letter-names, not letter associations.

Not so though in the case of the words you have dismissed, the sources of which I have refered to in my post, in all cases preceding the influence of 18th/19th century linguists and christian/hermetic cabbalah and in all cases to be found in Hebrew/Aramaic sources [eg, the Talmud, Bahir, Zohar]. And in the case of Lamed -ox goad for example this is based upon the meaning of name, not through associations. Of course these sources may be in error too, my point was not whether the meanings are ultimately erroneous or not, but to show such have the authority of Jewish texts and are not the products of 'Gentile' cabbalists or later linguists, which view you supported when suggested by another in a later post.

Kwaw

 

[jmd]

Where I am in agreement with the general thrust of what I take to be kwaw's major points is that irrespective as to which letter correlations one wishes to make with the Atouts, interesting and relevant meanings will be discovered or, as in post-GD decks, directly incorporated (even if it means swapping a couple of cards around to better meet or 'meat' the needs of the preferred correlation).

Where I am in greater agreement with filipas's point, however, is in what I take to be an approach that is essentially phenomenological: with these images, what arises as we compare them to a Hebrew lexicon of the same period?

Here, the approach is not one that seeks to find all possible words that may be remotely related, but ones that seem to have, in the first instance, a more 'surface' relation. It seems to me that Mark Filipas's proposal (and, I would add, effective discovery) is that the ordering itself shows signs of a possible abecederium-type thinking.

Does this mean that Levi (Alef-Bateleur, Shin-Fool, Tav-World), or Wescott (from work initially derived from Levi, and then altered for the GD) (Alef-Fool, Bet-Magician, Tav-World), or other correlations are 'incorrect'? Yes and no.

They are 'incorrect' in the sense that if Mark Filipas's correlated thesis is correct, Levi and Wescott made a mistake in presuming or inadvertently suggesting that the deck from which they derived their own correlations (the Marseille) incorporates their own preference.

They are 'correct' in the sense that having seen some correlations, they then moved these about until finding that which they sensed worked best, in the process 're-inventing' Tarot-Hebrew correlations to 'better' fit important concepts and various Kabalistic, Talmudic or general Hebrew mystical-magical texts - correlations that nonetheless may have first been invented and incorporated with the creation of the Marseille... or, if some indications are further looked into, perhaps even one of the Visconti-type decks.

Of course, if one simply looks at just the letter Alef and the two cards with which it has been variously correlated (as per the opening and title of this thread), a correlation with the Fool can easily 'explain' its un-numbering: the beginning of Genesis opens with the second letter (Bet) and the creative act ('Magician').

On the other hand, if one makes the correlation with the Bateleur, then the very form of the letter also becomes (in this case, as with Lamed, because possible) important: which arm is up, which down, which holds the 'wand'. The value of the letter of course also relates directly, without any removed abstract (though wonderfully important) reflections... and of course, that wonderful magical word, taken originally from Hebrew, opens the whole magical sequence with the same letter and image representation: abracadabra.