Subscribe below to receive notification of the latest update.

Subscription options

Name:   

E-mail:  

ATS Newsletters

by author

Tarotpedia

The Boiardo 15th c Poem
Tarot history in brief

quotations from various people

Functions of Readings
What is Tarot?


Anonymous

Med. on XVIIII

Emily E. Auger

Tarot and Other Meditation Decks

L. Atkinson

Orphalese Software review

S. Arwen

Memory & Instinct

Kathy Berkowitz

Waite's Mystical Tradition (Pt 1)
Waite's Mystical Tradition (Pt 2)
Waite's Mystical Tradition (Pt 3)
Waite's Mystical Tradition (Pt 4)

Nina L. Braden

Tarot in Literature

David Brice

Birth of Tarot

Colin Browne

Square & Compasses Tarot

Lee A. Bursten

Journeys in Tarot Creation
Vachetta review

E.C.

Review: The Lo Scarabeo Story

Ross G. Caldwell

Tarot History

Bonnie Cehovet

Tarology - Poetics of Tarot
Review: Secret of Tarot
The Mystereum Tarot

N. Chishty-Mujahid

Concerning Ghisi’s Laberinto

Craig Conley

A House of Tarot Cards

A.B. Crowther

Rachel Pollack interview

Jean-Michel David

On Paneurythmy and Tarot
Tarot's expression of the numinous
Yarker, Tarot & Arcane Schools
Waite-Smith Sun card
The Fool as Wandering Jew
Tarot as Christian Art
Education through Tarot
Tarot: the vatical & the sacral
Fortuna, Ass & Monkey
Steiner and Tarot
1701 Dodal restored!
Enc. Tarot vol I-IV: review
Christ, World & Sin
Caveat Emptor:
       Visual Tarot

Tarot & AlefBeit
Review: Jean Payen Tarot
Tarot and Freemasonry
I-Ching and Pip Cards
Whither directing your course?
Tarot & the Tree of Life
Ovid, Egypt and Tarot
When the Devil isn't the Devil
Four elements and the suits
Court Cards & MBTI
Certification & Codes
Jean Dodal Marseille
Conference FAQs
Golden Dawn
Kabalah & Tarot
Golden Tarot review
Annual spread
Iraqi Museum
Two Brief TdM reviews
Meditations on the Tarot

Enrique Enriquez

The Joy of Wordplay
J-C. Flornoy interview
Embodied Tarot
Indirect Suggestions
Whispering to the Eye

Mark Filipas

History of Egyptian Decks
Lexicon Theory

Jean-Claude Flornoy

in memorium
from Oral Tradition

Roxanne Flornoy

Children and Tarot
from Oral Tradition

Mary Greer

Killing the Thoth Deck
On the Tarot of the Four Worlds
Egypt, Tarot and Mystery School Initiations

William Haigwood

The Sixties: Counterculture Tarot

Alissa Hall

Parlour Tricks

Kris Hadar

The Tarot

Claas Hoffmann

Crowley-Harris 'Thoth' deck

Michael J. Hurst

Tarot Symbolism review

K. Frank Jensen

Century with the Waite-Smith

Shane Kendal

A Poetry of Tarot

Ken J. Killeen

The Metaphysical Bible

Barbara Klaser

Language of Tarot

E. Koretaka

Cardinal Virtues

Dovid Krafchow

Kabbalistic Tarot

Lisa Larson

Perceptions of Spirituality

Suzan E. Lemont

Therapeutic Tarot Work

Eric K. Lerner

Diloggun and Tarot

N. Levine

Tarot of Prague review

C. Liknaitzky

Journey in Ceramics

Joep van Loon

Tarot Wheel

Karen Mahony

Prague

S.J. Mangan

Fool, Alef & Orion

Robert Mealing

Petrarch’s Triumphs
Jean Noblet Tarot
Hunting the "true" Marseille Tarot
Cary Sheet

Fern Mercier

Playing the Fool

C. de Mellet

Inquiries into Tarot

Sophie Nusslé

Fantastic Menagerie

Robert V. O'Neill

Tarot Symbolism
Tower Iconology

Michael Owen

Xultun Tarot

Dan Pelletier

Magic Manga Tarot
the Blank Spot

Robert M. Place

The Fool's Journey

Debra Rosenthal

Looking at the Jacques Vieville

Mjr Tom Schick

Tarot Lovers Calendar

Inna Semetsky

Counseling Reading for Spouses
Learning the language of images
Re-Symbolization of Self
Tarot (dis)contents

Diana Sobolewska

'Bateleur's tale'

Russell Sturgess

Jesus's New Testament

N. Swift

Sufism & Tarot

Arthur E. Waite

Symbols of Tarot

Tarot Trumps and Hebrew Letters:
variety and divergence

Jean-Michel David
www.fourhares.com

In looking through various decks and reading across a reasonably broad variety of books on tarot, divergent claims are made for trumps and various correlations. One of the most persistent is the claim that somehow trump cards and letters of the alphabet have correlations.

If the earliest extent tarot cards have any such letter attributions intended by the artists, woodcarvers or publishers, then these have not come down to us, and correlations or attributions have become well masked. The strongest case I have seen to suggest that trump design may have been influenced by letters is Mark Filipas’s Alphabetic Masquerade. Therein, Mark shows how woodcut decks from the 17th and 18th centuries bear some resemblence, and what could be some evidence, for deck design to have been modified as an abecederium – basically, the images have been influenced by considerations that continue to be popular in children’s picture-books (A is for Apple, B for Bear, etc.), though in tarot’s case, the letters are suggested as Hebrew letters, and their associated words often somewhat removed from the obviousness of the apparent image (see Newsletter #4 for an example from Mark).

For those amongst us who normally attribute Hebrew letters to the trumps of the tarot, it is apparent that whatever preference we have is not shared by others who prefer attributions at varience with our own. And then, we also at times come across attributions which seem so far at odds with the more common ones. If there are numerous variations that are in existence, three dominate. Below is a minor modification of a webpage originally prepared in order to discuss with Sitsky his attributions (to which I shall return shortly). As can be seen from the table, there is no unified view on the matter.

 

Let’s briefly go through these columns in the order presented.

Filipas

This is one of the three most common or popular version. It appears in the late 19th century with the works (and deck) of Falconnier. If I ‘head’ that column with Filipas’s name who wrote his work in 2001, it is only because if his idea of an alphabetic abecederium is correct, then it indicates the earliest likely influence on tarot design: the 17th century decks commonly referred to as ‘Tarot de Marseille’ (irrespective as to whether they originate from Marseille or other regions).

The ordering is quite simple and to the point: the numbers on the cards are taken as ordinal (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc, with the last un-numbered), and the alef-bet (Hebrew alphabet) is similarly taken in its ordinal value. What emerges is a very straightforward relation between, for example, card XVII and the seventeenth letter.

de Mellet

De Mellet’s essay is the first historical instance in which some kind of direct relation is made between letters and trumps. The essay, available (in part) in a previous ATS Newsletter (#56), was originally published in De Gebelin’s Monde Primitif, vol VIII, 1781. Therein, he lists the trumps in descending order from XXI through to I, after which he places the un-numbered Fool. This implies that in his view, as later authors and card designers have similarly done, that this card is ‘numbered’ zero.

He also mentions:

These twenty-two first cards are not only hieroglyphs, that placed in their natural order retrace the story of the earliest times, but they are also as much letters [footnote: the Hebrew alphabet is composed of 22 letters], that combined differently, can form many sentences; as well their name (A-tout) is only the literal translation of their general use and general.

So here there is a clear implication that the ordering that he had just enumerated reflects in some manner the Hebrew letters as presented in the second column.

Levi

Alphonse Louis Constant, better known through his Hebraïsed name as Eliphas Levi (Zahed), is undoutbedly the individual most influential in bringing Hebrew letter attributions to tarot. His works span a few decades with a locus around the 1850s. It is also from his view that the ensuing column (of the G.D.) indirectly stems, as he showed his correlations to Mackenzie, one of the founders of the GD, over twenty years prior to the latter’s establishment.

The difference between the Filipas attributions and his own is that the Fool is placed between cards XX and XXI, thereby attributing it Shin. No ‘obvious’ reason is given for this, but it is interesting that in the game of tarot, gamblers establish specific orderings that are likely passed on from generation to generation: if one holds the Fool in one’s hand, it is placed next to last in the sequence of trumps in one’s hand, as a simple mnemonic to preclude it being played last (the only play which loses the Fool for the player, it being deemed as one of three singularly important cards for scoring purposes). This attribution of Shin remains important even on decks that otherwise attribute it as does the GD. For example, a Shin is still found on the Waite-Smith and BOTA Fools, despite their GD influence.

G.D.

With the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn [G.D.] formed in 1888, numerous decks incorporate their preference at times without, it seems, understanding how the attributions were derived.

In the first place, the proposal by Levi became a preliminary working model by the GD’s founders. In addition, the early Kabbalistic Sefer Yetzirah, in which is given elemental, planetary and zodiacal correlations to the letters, is considered. To make attributions in a manner they considered more apt, not only was the Fool placed as heading the sequence (for them numbered zero), but the two cards that appeared to be ‘out’ of what then follows as astrological sequence were interchanged (so VIII Justice and XI Strength become 8 – Justice and 11- Strength).

In addition, though this does not affect the letter attributions, the planetary attributions to the letters differ to the various versions of the Sefer Yetzirah. It should be noted, however, that these do differ in various versions of the book, unlike the consistency found for the elemental and zodiacal attributions.

In looking at the list in the fourth column, what should be apparent is that reading down the list the trumps are simply listed in (revised) order, as they are for each of the previous three columns (with obvious differences).

Crowley

Aleister Crowley’s attributions takes its basis that of the GD, save that he had to reconcile an insight during a working whilst in Egypt that ‘Tzaddi is not the Star’. After a number of years, he found a method that satisfied his general acceptance of the GD attributions together with that lingering ‘problem’: by placing the cards in a double lemniscatory form, not only was the interchange from the longer established ordering of Justice and Strength ‘justified’, but, interestingly, the Emperor and the Star now also ‘interchanged’.

The difference between Crowley and the Golden Dawn is that he generally maintains (apart from adding zero to the Fool) the numbering of the more traditional order (ie., VIII is Justice), but allocates Hebrew letters according to the GD with the further addition of the interchange of the Emperor and the Star.

Sitsky

Since 2005 when I mentioned his Twenty-Two Paths of the Tarot Piano Concertos during an interview on national radio, Larry Sitsky’s attributions had remained a ‘bother’. Of course I could ‘rationalise’ the differences by any number of possibilities, but it was not until this year (2009) that I finally contacted Larry to simply ask him.

In final analysis, his rationale is quite as straightforward as any of the others so far mentioned: he begins from a tarot ordering, and following these attributes the letters in order. Amongst his more detailed communication, he summarises it thus:

The order of the Tarot in my piece came from Ouspensky’s little book on the tarot, and the music was the result of meditating on each of the cards.

Ouspensky’s little book, Symbolism of the Tarot, in general follows the ordering of the GD, except that he positions the Fool last (strictly, Ouspensky also interchanges the Pope [or Hierophant] and the Chariot, but Sitsky follows the normal numbering for these).

Gray

I’ve included Gray’s attributions more as an example of something that at first hand appears far more complex and even, at mere listing, apparently irrational.

Strictly speaking, William Gray prefers his own version of ‘Anglo-Saxon’ letters. Still, he does make suggestions for card placements on the Kircher version of the Tree of Life with, importantly, Hebrew letters there allocated. These, though obviously taken from the GD attributions, are thereby ‘mismatched’ in a manner that nonetheless ‘makes sense’ (though I personally consider it rather contrived).

The overall rendition, taken from combing his Concepts of Qabalah (Cf esp. pp 146 & 223), gives rise to the listing given.


In writing about Hebrew letter attributions to tarot trumps, it should not be forgotten that many amongst us also see that none are intrinsic to the cards, but rather extraneous ‘intrusions’ into a deck that may originally bear no rapport with any kind of alphabetic or Kabbalistic thought.

Yet, I am personally lead to consider that that even if the earliest created decks had no such direct influence, it is possible the Hebrew letters were ‘incorporated’ very early as the deck settled to the canon with which we have become familiar. Later still, further reflections on cards and letters have certainly, and repeatedly, made their mark on various developments.

1 comment to

Tarot Trumps and Hebrew Letters:
variety and divergence

You must be logged in to post a comment.