Is The Planet Order Really a Mess?

Rosanne

I guess you are right Kwaw. It is interesting that Ishtar is supposed to herald the appearance of the sun, and she is seen as as Venus, but her symbol is the eight pointed star; then Inana who is Ishtar's equivalent is symbolised by rays of the Sun. Maybe my mind is filled with far too many systems.
As a total aside: In 2060 In the Western Sky going from horizon to mid heaven (May) before sunrise will be an arc of Mercury Venus Mars Saturn and Jupiter West to East. What a sight to behold!
I am seeing occasionally why you see Aleph as the Fool :D (But I will persevere) ~Rosanne
 

kwaw

Rosanne said:
I guess you are right Kwaw. It is interesting that Ishtar is supposed to herald the appearance of the sun, and she is seen as as Venus,

I think I have seen both Mercury and Venus described as heralds of the Sun.

Kwaw
 

Ross G Caldwell

Isn't it interesting though that the Cipher Manuscript and the G.D. tradition follows NONE of the possible Sefer Yetzirah versions in its allocation of letters-planets to tarot trumps - although it does follow the SY's order of the signs to the twelve single letters.

Westcott's translation (1887) presents the planet-letter attributions as an "Appendix, found in some versions" to Chapter IV, as well as the sign-letter attributions as an appendix to Chapter V. But whoever wrote the Cipher ms. appears to have regarded only the first set as arbitrary.

The Cipher Manuscript order (familiar to everyone):

Beth - Mercury - Magician
Gimel - Moon - High Priestess
Daleth - Venus - Empress
Caph - Jupiter - Wheel of Fortune
Peh - Mars - Tower
Resh - Sun - Sun
Tau - Saturn - World

The Cipher ms. appears to have given the sign-single letter attributions primacy, and then fit the planetary-letter attributions to the tarot cards according to a perceived symbolic relationship.

Ross
 

Rosanne

Ross G Caldwell said:
The Cipher ms. appears to have given the sign-single letter attributions primacy, and then fit the planetary-letter attributions to the tarot cards according to a perceived symbolic relationship.
Thats been the problem for me Ross, I cannot see what GD was doing or why. I have always been under the impression that GD followed SY attributions, but can't seem to find a reason for the planet order. So it looks to me seven letters were left over and thats what they used. I thought I might have spied a hole with colour, or the musical scale, but I was dreaming. Wish I could figure it out though- it annoys me. greater minds than mine seem to be bemused as well.
Tower- pe makes sense when you explain it that way Kwaw! ~Rosanne
 

venicebard

Rosanne said:
I feel like giving the Sun to the Star as we only have one star- but is is the only constant I can find in that it is Aquarius.
Stop and think: we only have the scientists' word for the sun's being a star, and since this is something still quite theoretical (unlike, say, the periodic table, which is firmly established), judging by their track-record I would remain skeptical, were I you. Of course since I take sol to be the focus of air's receptivity to starlight or fire -- the point of 'discharge' so to speak of the electromagnetic grid (the stellar reaches) -- I reject the equation utterly, deferring to the Hermetic model in all matters where it offers the superior model.
kwaw said:
The kneeling figure of the Star card has clear parallels with images of Aquarius.
Yet the Marseilles trump Temperance -- which certainly predates all the later esoteric 'jugglery' -- has the symbol for the sign aquarius right on it (in the wavy lines between the jugs).
I suppose the most straightforward allocation for the Sun card would be the Sun.
. . . if it happens to line up with a double in whatever scheme one has adopted.
kwaw said:
Very, very briefly, Venus = insatiable desire of the appetitive soul [the ever consuming, all devouring mouth; Pe means 'mouth'].
It seems to me (and others) that peh is the mouth in speaking -- that is, with its tongue articulated within it (in square Hebrew) -- whereas mouth as recepticle would appear to be kaf -- without a tongue articulated in it in other words, a mere cave or cavity into which to put things. But going back to old Hebrew, it would actually be reysh, surely, based as it was on the hieratic of the mouth hieroglyph r, according to scholars (of the 19th century, meaning pre-'Sinaicitus'). [The four horizontal, or flat, hieroglyphs corresponding to the four doubles from horizon without to straight down (the four elements) in Egyptian (as opposed to the 'group writing' used in foreign words that formed the basis of old Hebrew) were hand tongs basket mouth (d t k r), it being however t the duckling whose hieratic form became tav (from the cross prominent in its hieratic form).]
 

kwaw

venicebard said:
It seems to me (and others) that peh is the mouth in speaking -- that is, with its tongue articulated within it (in square Hebrew) -- whereas mouth as recepticle would appear to be kaf -- without a tongue articulated in it in other words, a mere cave or cavity into which to put things. ]

I reference speaking later in the same post. The letter Beit is formed of the white space inside the letter Pe; the mouth, in which the tongue is housed. The tongue is an organ of taste, and also part in the processing of food as well as one of articulation.

definition from biology online:

Tongue: An organ situated in the floor of the mouth of most vertebrates and connected with the hyoid arch.

The tongue is usually muscular, mobile, and free at one extremity, and in man other mammals is the principal organ of taste, aids in the prehension of food, in swallowing, and in modifying the voice as in speech.

Kwaw
 

venicebard

kwaw said:
I reference speaking later in the same post. The letter Beit is formed of the white space inside the letter Pe; the mouth, in which the tongue is housed. The tongue is an organ of taste, and also part in the processing of food as well as one of articulation.
Beyt is squared-off: a dwelling or habitation, hence the meaning 'house' and 'house of'. Kaf would be the hollow (and indeed K was the hazel to bards, perhaps almond to Semites, both primary proteins).

The evidence -- I do not expect you to agree, but here goes -- is that peh stands for the poetic mysteries: its rune is the rune-bag or rune-cup on its side, that is, having just spewed its rune-dice, symbolic of speech (emitting sounds) and divination; and its tree, water-elder, symbolizes the habitation of cranes, the alphabet (in Keltic lore) being carried in a crane-skin bag; its place in the tree-calendar is at sagittary, which is the active side of the airy layer or level or horizontal (which is actively speech and passively hearing); it is on the lip and therefore one of the earliest visible manifestations of speech-articulation we experience when learning to talk; and as for Hebrew roots, I don't have my peh-cards with me (and have not yet mapped peh-roots, only gathered them), but I would be surprised if it does not back me up in this. Indeed if it fails to (and I shall put it next on my list to map), I shall run, not walk, to this thread and say so, with apologies. I also connect its Egyptian form, reed stool, with the 'chair of the poet' that is such a predominant symbol in Keltic lore, with the divine Throne symbolizing the poetic-prophetic mysteries in Hebrew lore, and indeed with the Merkabah or throne-chariot pictured in its trump, VII LeChariot (P being bardic 7), the term used to refer to said mysteries.
 

kwaw

Ross G Caldwell said:
All of those orders are different - there's even another one (not to confuse you further) - the days of the week! Sun-Moon-Mars-Mercury-Jupiter-Venus-Saturn.

Ross

Which is derived from the Chaldean order as rulers of the planetary hours. And that seems to be at the root of the confusion. In the early manuscripts of the SY the chaldean order is associated with the days, instead of the planetary hours which result in the planetary order of days as above, and it is this apparent inconsistency with the accepted theory of the planetary week which seems to be at the root of all the confusion.

In the earliest extent manuscripts of both the short and long version [manuscripts K and A in prior post] we find:

para 42 and 43a:

Short version [K] And with them were carved out seven firmaments, seven earths, seven hours and seven times. Therefore he loved the seventh under heaven.

These are the seven planets in the universe: Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars. And the days in the years: the seven days of creation. And the seven apertures in mankind: two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, and the mouth.

Long version [A] And with them were carved out seven firmaments, seven earths, seven hours and seven days. Therefore he loved the seventh above everything under heaven.

These are the seven planets in the universe: Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars. And the seven days: the seven days of creation. And the seven apertures in mankind: two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, and the mouth.

Hayman writes [p.143]:

"Despite the fact that he was working with a defective printed text of SY...Soloman Ganz has correctly observed that the author of SY in pp 41 and 44 has "connected the seven planets in the natural order Saturn Jupiter Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon with the first seven days instead of the first hours of creation." Consequently, 42 and 43a with their reference to the "seven hours" and the order Sun Venus Mercury Moon Saturn Jupiter Mars must be "the gloss of an editor who wished to reconsile the theory of the Book of Creation with the accepted theory of the planetary week". So the later editor "mentions the seven hours and changes the sequence Saturn Jupiter Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon into the sequence Sun Venus Mercury
Moon Saturn Jupiter Mars to correspond with the first seven hours of the first day of the week".

However, as pointed out by Kaplan, in biblical reckoning evening precedes day; a day thus runs from evening to evening in Jewish tradition, not morning to morning. The first 7 hours of the first day in biblical reckoning and Jewish tradition would thus be Mercury Moon Saturn Jupiter Mars Sun Venus.

Judah Ha-Levi retains the Chaldean order commencing with Saturn but gives days to correspond with accepted planetary week: 'In the year: Sabbath, Thursday, Tuesday, Sunday, Friday, Wednesday, Monday" (Kuzari 4:25, row F in table 33 on p.179 of Kaplan). As pointed out by Ross Sheirat Yosef 10a gives planetary order according to the planetary week (saturday, saturn; sunday, sun; monday, moon; tuesday, mars; wednesday, mercury; thursday, jupiter; friday, venus - row G, table 33 on p.179 Kaplan).

For anyone unfamiliar with the planetary hours and the relatioship of such to the names of the days in the planetary week Kaplan explains:

According to the Bible, the Stars and Planets were made on the fourth day of creation... The planets were placed in their positions on the eve of the fourth day, that is, on Tuesday night. They were placed one at time, an hour apart, in order of their distance from earth. Thus in the

first hour (6 p.m.), Saturn was placed in its position...
second hour Jupiter...
third hour Mars...
fourth hour Sun...
fifth hour Venus...
sixth hour Mercury...
seventh hour Moon...

After the first seven hours, their dominance began a new cycle, with the planets in the same order. This seven hour cycle continues throughout the week, and it is the same every week...

The first hour of each evening [after sunset] is dominated by a different planet...

Sun. Mercury
Mon. Jupiter
Tues. Venus
Wed. Saturn
Thurs. Sun
Fri. Moon
Sat. Mars

The first hour of each morning [from sunrise]

Sun. Sun
Mon. Moon
Tues. Mars
Wed. Mercury
Thurs. Jupiter
Fri. Venus
Sat. Sat

Note that the name of each day is associated witht he planet that dominates its first hour in the morning [sun - sunday, moon-monday, etc].

For further explanation of planetary hours with tables, diagrams see for example:
http://www.renaissanceastrology.com/planetaryhoursarticle.html

Shabbetai Donnolo in one of the earliest of the commentaries on the SY is aware of the discrepancies and "expressed the necessity of correcting the aberrant contents of SY at this point" [Hayman].

So while it is true there is confusion in the very earliest manuscripts of the SY, it is also clear that the basis is the chaldean order with confusion specifically related to the relationship between the planetary hours and days of the week.

Kwaw
Sefer Yetzira Aryeh Kaplan (Weiser Books 1997)
Sefer Yesira A. Peter Hayman (Mohr Siebeck 2004)

Online planetary hour calculator for your location:

http://novachart.com/cgi-bin/chart/Input.exe?PARAM=YRP&FINALFORM=hours.html
 

kwaw

Ross G Caldwell said:
Hi Kwaw,



they don't like anything but Washington DC. How do I get my location?

I put Coventry, UK in the submit location box and submit. When it refreshes the submit box still shows Washinton DC, however the times have changed and the location Coventry UK appears in the top left hand corner of the screen and BST.

Kwaw