Trump order - Planetary jumble

Ave,

Eliphas Levi made huge advancements in the occult world. His work on the Tarot was based on the Marseilles deck (which has the same order as the Rider-Waite except for the interchanged Justice and Strength cards). Through his work, this order became accepted as the "true order". Working with this accepted order, it was observed that Justice and Strength were quite obviously backwards. The symbology is apparent: Scales-Libra-Justice, Lion-Leo-Strength. Why was such an obvious mistake left in the Marseilles ordering?

The idea is that there were blinders in the ordering of the Trumps so that their connection to the Hebrew Alephbet would be hidden from all but the serious students. It was ruled out that the number of Trumps could be linked to anything but the Hebrew Alephbet, especially since 13 of the 22 matched the Sepher Yetzirah perfectly. Putting Justice and Strength in their correct places, lessened that margin to 15/22. The only cards that didn't match now were the planetary correspondences.

There are many translations of the Sepher Yetzirah, but there are three principal ones, namely: Saadia, (ARI-)GRA, and Westcott. The Saadia translation is said to be the first version and comes from the 10th century. Until the appearance of the (ARI-)GRA translation in the 18th century, all translations agreed upon the planetary attributions of the Alephbet. The GRA version is based upon the system by Moses Cordovero and in turn Isaac Luria, hence the Luriatic system. Westcott's translation (a principal root of our G:.D:.) has planetary correspondences that are completely different from both aforementioned versions. Thus, all three principal versions have not one planetary corresponce alike.

Following the blinders "theory", there were two more supposed blinders besides the Strength-Justice one. The Saadia version attributes Mars to Dalet and Venus to Pay, which in the Marseilles deck would be: Dalet-Mars-Empress and Pay-Venus-Tower (House of God). It seems obvious that this too makes more sense the other way, with the feminine image for Venus and a destructive image for Mars. This change was also made by Westcott and Mathers. Instead though of swapping the cards as was done in the Strength-Justice instance, the planetary attribution to the Hebrew Alephbet was changed, and this is reflected in our present order of Trumps and in Westcott's translation: Dalet-Venus-Empress, Pay-Mars-Tower.

In any respect, the third "blinder" was thought to have been the remaining 5 planetary attributed Trumps. If the second blinder was eliminated in the same method as the first, then the cards would have been swapped (as opposed to the planetary attribution) and thus prompted to the idea that the other five planetary attriubted Trumps should be ordered as suggested by the Saadia translation. Westcott and Mathers did not do that though, and the other 5 Trumps are seemingly without order. Though texts such as those by Paul Foster Case do make sense of the order developed by Westcott and Mathers, the order is not clean as the zodiac procession is, or as the planetary order would be according to the Saadia translation of the Sepher Yetzirah. Westcott says in his translation, "The true attribution is probably not anywhere printed. The planet names here given are Chaldee words. "


Planetary Attributions in the Sepher Yetzirah

Hebrew Letter - G:.D:. - Saadia

Bet - Mercury - Saturn
Gimel - Moon - Jupiter
Dalet - Venus - Mars
Kaf - Jupiter - Sun
Pay - Mars - Venus
Resh - Sun - Mercury
Tav - Saturn - Moon


The origin of Mars and Venus in Westcott translation is proposed above. It may be possible that the correspondences were chosen because of similar Chakra correspondences. On one hand we could say why question the matter, since the system works. On the other hand, aren't we to question all matters? Does anybody have any thoughts on this matter?

PAX et LVX,
Justin

Welcome to Aeclectic, radziel.

We obviously share a deep interest in the area, even if we are going to agree to disagree on some matters - makes for all the livelier and deepening of discussions.

Your post makes a few statements which I agree with, others I consider erroneous presuppositions - though certainly ones also made, and oft repeated, by others.

If you don't mind, let's take these singly.

• Eliphas Levi

Alphonse Louis Constant/Eliphas Levi certainly did make great contributions to the esoteric world, and its revival in both mid-19th century France and its influence on both the GD and the continental Kabbalistic Order of the Rose Cross - each of which fundamentally disagree with each other on Hebrew Letter association. Eliphas Levi's Letter association, with Alef=1=Magician starting the series, was regarded as correct by the latter order, and described as a 'blind' by those who prefer the GD's altered allocations (Aleph -> Fool=0).

• The Sefer Yetzirah

The Sefer Yetzirah, irrespective of the version or translation, is of course as silent as columns on this, for Tarot is neither implied nor mentioned.

In the Sefer Yetzirah, the allocations which you discuss are, as mentioned, those of which letters are assigned which signs of the zodiac, which elements for the Mother letters, and, the most un-unified, which seven traditional planets for the double letters. The 'major' versions follow the Ptolemaic ordering: Saturn to the Moon (based, simply, on relative apparent motion against the 'fixed' stars).

• Spiritual Impulses

It is with these various and disparate aspects, then, that one meets both the Tarot and Kabbalistic considerations. I probably share with Radziel (but please correct me if I am mistaken) that the world has, beyond its apparent visible materialistic aspects, a deeply spiritual and living - and life-filled - dimension. From this, various impulses and influences impact on our otherwise and only apparently mundane world. How certain things such as both the Tarot and the Sefer Yetzirah manifest, then, isn't solely through the 'mere' (however great) activity of the human agent, but through forces working beyond this level. Thus, although two (or more) things may appear disparate, they may have a deeper occult (ie, hidden) connection. Such, many view, is the esoteric occult connection between the Tarot and Kabbalah.

But. does this mean that the connections which appear as 'obvious' to some are 'correct'? Is their apparent working effectiveness imply that the knowledge achieved has also reached the level of understanding or wisdom? Here is where our views may differ - and where, I suspect, each may (however incorrectly) assume that one's own 'knowledge' is somehow closer to the supernal realm than the other's.

• Card images

The symbology of the cards may be connected with, for example, astrological correlations, but even VIII Justice and the scales of Libra are not, I suggest, directly equivalent. As to XI Strength, though again the Lion (if that is what the animal representation is - which I, at any case, too prefer) depicted certainly has its youthful majestic Leonine astrological qualities somewhat omitted in the Tarot representation of the card. I mention these two because (a) they have been mentioned above, (b) they have been interchanged by the GD, and (c) they are often given as 'evidence' that there are either blinds or mistakes which somehow need to be 'rectified' or 'corrected'.

Both the Tarot and Kabbalah (as well as astrology and other formalised insightful 'systems') undoubtedly meet and cross at various points. The GD form is but one of these - one which has, I contend, its strengths, but also its weaknesses.

The Sefer Yetzirah's double letter attributions, especially when following the Ptolemaic order, makes much sense - but how, if at all, these are in turn linked to the Tarot remains more than a puzzle-type knowledge-game.

• The Marseilles ordering

The Tarot's ordering in the Marseilles is not mistaken, and the Golden Dawn's astrological connections are not intrinsic to the deck - however great they may also be. With these disparate views of astrological association, then, even the Hebrew letter associations are variously possible, with the GD's being but one amongst numerous others.

Thankyou for your great post, and I look forward to reading further reflections and insights.