Book of Thoth Study Group #2: The Contents of the Tarot - Origin of the Tarot

Zephyros

The Theory of the Tarot: Part One: The Contents of the Tarot
Weiser edition page: 3
I - THE CONTENTS OF THE TAROT

THE TAROT is a pack of seventy-eight cards. There are four suits, as in modern playing cards, which are derived from it. But the Court cards number four instead of three. In addition, there are twenty-two cards called “Trumps”, each of which is a symbolic picture with a title itself. At first sight one would suppose this arrangement to be arbitrary, but it is not. It is necessitated, as will appear later, by the structure of the universe, and in particular of the Solar System, as symbolized by the Holy Qabalah. This will be explained in due course.

THE ORIGIN OF THE TAROT The origin of this pack of cards is very obscure. Some authorities seek to put it back as far as the ancient Egyptian Mysteries; others try to bring it forward as late as the fifteenth or even the sixteenth century. But the Tarot certainly existed, in what may be called the classical form, as early as the fourteenth century; for packs of that date are extant, and the form has not varied in any notable respect since that time. In the Middle Ages, these cards were much used for fortune telling, especially by gypsies, so that it was customary to speak of the “Tarot of the Bohemians”, or “Egyptians”. When it was found that the gypsies, despite the etymology, were of Asiatic origin, some people tried to find its source in Indian art and literature. There is here no need to enter into any discussion of these disputed points. [It is supposed by some scholars that the R.O.T.A. (Rota, a wheel) consulted in the Collegium ad Spiritum Sanctum—see the Manifesto “Fama Fraternitatis” of the Brothers of the Rosy Cross—was the Tarot.]

NEXT:
The Theory of the Correspondences of the Tarot
 

Zephyros

I have been made aware of an error in judgement, the sections I chose were simply too long, and I got carried away. To that end, this time we will concentrate ourselves on the first section, The Origin of the Tarot. If even shorter sections are even better, I'm completely willing to entertain ideas on how best to approach the material.

Sorry everybody, I make mistakes sometimes. Don't hate me. :)

I'll post a bit later my ideas on these sections, in any case.
 

Zephyros

I - THE CONTENTS OF THE TAROT

THE TAROT is a pack of seventy-eight cards. There are four suits, as in modern playing cards, which are derived from it. But the Court cards number four instead of three. In addition, there are twenty-two cards called “Trumps”, each of which is a symbolic picture with a title itself. At first sight one would suppose this arrangement to be arbitrary, but it is not. It is necessitated, as will appear later, by the structure of the universe, and in particular of the Solar System, as symbolized by the Holy Qabalah. This will be explained in due course.

The first real introduction of the book, telling us what we're all here for. Tarot is similar to a regular deck of playing cards, except that it has four Courts and an extra suit of Trumps. While Crowley saw great worth in the accepted ordering of the Trumps, I honestly feel a great leap of faith is needed here, about which I am skeptical. What we know of the Trumps today is that they went through many permutations and changes and while the "version" Crowley knew may make sense in retrospect and can be justified through Qabalah, I feel that he, as well as his peers at the time, took great liberties with the idea. Historically the Trumps may well be random. But this connects to the whole correspondences thing that comes later, which may just imply that nothing is random or arbitrary.

THE ORIGIN OF THE TAROT The origin of this pack of cards is very obscure. Some authorities seek to put it back as far as the ancient Egyptian Mysteries; others try to bring it forward as late as the fifteenth or even the sixteenth century. But the Tarot certainly existed, in what may be called the classical form, as early as the fourteenth century; for packs of that date are extant, and the form has not varied in any notable respect since that time. In the Middle Ages, these cards were much used for fortune telling, especially by gypsies, so that it was customary to speak of the “Tarot of the Bohemians”, or “Egyptians”. When it was found that the gypsies, despite the etymology, were of Asiatic origin, some people tried to find its source in Indian art and literature. There is here no need to enter into any discussion of these disputed points. [It is supposed by some scholars that the R.O.T.A. (Rota, a wheel) consulted in the Collegium ad Spiritum Sanctum—see the Manifesto “Fama Fraternitatis” of the Brothers of the Rosy Cross—was the Tarot.

I like how he says "no need," the way he later speaks of very complicated things as "very simple." I suppose we all make that mistake sometimes. In some ways his view of Tarot history is correct, in others it seems dependent on his time. In any case it seems he concentrates on how people saw the deck, rather than what it actually was.

A point of interest here is his inclusion of the 14th century as the "Middle Ages." I wonder why.

There is also the matter of mention of the Fama Fraternitatis as a possible occult source for Tarot. I don't understand the document, but maybe someone else will. I doubt it has anything to actually do with Tarot, but may have colored how Crowley saw it.
 

Aeon418

While Crowley saw great worth in the accepted ordering of the Trumps, I honestly feel a great leap of faith is needed here, about which I am skeptical.
I don't think Crowley is commenting on the developmental history of Tarot in this section. He's just defining what a Tarot deck is for the purposes of the book. The system being presented here is Qabalistic, so our Tarot must consist of 78 cards - 22 Trumps, 4 suits of 10 cards each, and 16 Court cards. At first sight this structure might seem arbitrary. But once you are introduced to the Qabalah (which will be presented later on) it will make sense. Hopefully... :joke:
In some ways his view of Tarot history is correct, in others it seems dependent on his time.
Whether Crowley's history is correct or not seems to be irrelevant. In this section he just sweeps all such historical considerations to one side. So what if there are disputed points in the history of Tarot. It's got nothing to do with subject being presented in The Book of Thoth.
There is also the matter of mention of the Fama Fraternitatis as a possible occult source for Tarot.
If it wasn't for the Fama and the Confessio Fraternitatis, we proabably wouldn't be having this conversation. ;)
The Fama is one of the main influences behind the Golden Dawn. The centre piece of the Order ceremonies, the 5 = 6 grade, is based directly of the discovery of the tomb of Christian Rosenkreutz. The Vault used in that ceremony is meant to represent the tomb described in the Fama.

In the legend the 'Brothers' were said to consult the Rota before they entered the tomb, and again before they sealed it. Was this the Tarot? Who knows. :confused: But the symbolism was worked into the Golden Dawn and thus influenced Crowley.

Is it a coincidence that Liber Legis is designated 220? Not only does it symbolise the 10 Sephiroth multiplied by the 22 Paths, it also represents the identifying seal of the Brothers of the Rosy Cross mentioned in the Fama. C.R. in Hebrew is Kaph, Resh = 220.
And Crowley would have been very familiar with a certain passage in the Confessio.
Confessio Fraternitatis said:
... our treasures shall remain untouched, till the Lion shall arise and exact them as his right, receive and employ them for the establishment of his kingdom.

The influence of the Fama is present in the sigils in Liber XXII. The inscription above the door to C.R.'s tomb read, "Post CXX annos patebo". After 120 years I will open. In Liber XXII, the Mercurial sigil for Nun displays CXX LVX. The corresponding Qliphotic sigil for Shin says "NON PAT EBO" - Not Open, with a closed eye underneath. 120 is the symbolic age of the Adept who has completed the previous grades. 1x2x3x4x5=120.
But Crowley moved all this symbolism to Yesod in his reformed A.'.A.'., as he considered 120 to symbolise a lesser redemption.
 

Michael Sternbach

Hi Zephyros,

You have raised some interesting topics that I would like to somewhat elaborate on. Not least for the sake of readers less familiar with the background of the BoT. :)

The first real introduction of the book, telling us what we're all here for. Tarot is similar to a regular deck of playing cards, except that it has four Courts and an extra suit of Trumps. While Crowley saw great worth in the accepted ordering of the Trumps, I honestly feel a great leap of faith is needed here, about which I am skeptical. What we know of the Trumps today is that they went through many permutations and changes and while the "version" Crowley knew may make sense in retrospect and can be justified through Qabalah, I feel that he, as well as his peers at the time, took great liberties with the idea. Historically the Trumps may well be random. But this connects to the whole correspondences thing that comes later, which may just imply that nothing is random or arbitrary.

My own take on this is that Tarot is an emergent system. It's as though a prototype or archetype exists on the level of the Platonic "ideas", and stuff from various sources accumulates and falls into place in order to fulfill that "idea". The same holds true for other esoteric systems as well: Astrology, today a pretty coherent, logical system, was compiled from Babylonian, Egyptian, Hellenistic, Arab sources. And talking about the Qabalah, of course, the Tree of Life that we (and Crowley) are so familiar with, is a relatively late version given us by Athanasius Kircher; it had precursors, and probably will have successors (i.e. there are already some three-dimensional models of the ToL).

Has Tarot fully emerged, at least as far as its basic structure? Perhaps not. Crowley and other GD members were themselves part of the ongoing attempts to reproduce the archetypal "idea" of Tarot as faithfully as possible. Any given expression of this "idea" may be less than perfect - just like any given crystal may not be a perfect manifestation of its underlying idea. But that doesn't mean it's arbitrary in any way.

The Book of Thoth said:
At first sight one would suppose this arrangement to be arbitrary, but it is not. It is necessitated, as will appear later, by the structure of the universe, and in particular of the Solar System, as symbolized by the Holy Qabalah. This will be explained in due course.

Here AC proposes a simple equation: Solar System = Qabalah = Tarot. An interesting equation, to be sure, but one that raises as many questions as it provides answers. Especially if we consider (as you have implied) that we don't know the ultimate form of any of those systems. But we will come back to this in due time.

I like how he says "no need," the way he later speaks of very complicated things as "very simple." I suppose we all make that mistake sometimes. In some ways his view of Tarot history is correct, in others it seems dependent on his time. In any case it seems he concentrates on how people saw the deck, rather than what it actually was.

A point of interest here is his inclusion of the 14th century as the "Middle Ages." I wonder why.

It is incorrect anyway.

The Book of Thoth said:
But the Tarot certainly existed, in what may be called the classical form, as early as the fourteenth century; for packs of that date are extant, and the form has not varied in any notable respect since that time.

Any references dating that far back are to our common playing cards, not to Tarot. As we know now, Tarot emerged from playing cards, not the other way around. The oldest Tarot cards extant are from the fifteenth century, and as you mentioned, their number and order has varied in different decks.

The Book of Thoth said:
In the Middle Ages, these cards were much used for fortune telling, especially by gypsies, so that it was customary to speak of the “Tarot of the Bohemians”, or “Egyptians”.

Wrong again. It seems like ordinary playing cards were used for fortune telling soon after their introduction. But there is no evidence for Tarot being employed for anything but card games (Tarock) before the 18th century. At least we don't have any record of it.

There is also the matter of mention of the Fama Fraternitatis as a possible occult source for Tarot. I don't understand the document, but maybe someone else will. I doubt it has anything to actually do with Tarot, but may have colored how Crowley saw it.

A very important and interesting topic. The Fama Fraternitatis was one of the two original Rosicrucian manifestos published in the early 17th century. It talks of one "C. R." (in all likelihood referring to Christian Rosencreutz) who travelled long and far in pursuit of secret universal wisdom.

Rosencreutz may well be a mythical character, but he served as the model of a universal man versed in Qabalah, Hermeticism, magic, physics, mathematics, medicine and philosophy, thus combining mysticism and science. Not least he became the model for Crowley who did not only travel a lot in search of occult knowledge, but also emphasized the union of mysticism and science throughout his career, and not least in the BoT. (See my comments on the foreword in BoT Study Group #1.)

The Fama mentions a "rota", apparently some kind of divinatory tool that was consulted especially in order to retrieve documents hidden by the original founders of the Brotherhood of the Rose Cross. It is not surprising that the "rota" was identified with Tarot in AC's syncretic mind.

Obviously, he took the story conveyed by the Fama at face value. According to modern historians, it is by no means certain that the Brotherhood really existed. Nevertheless, the manifestos were well received and found very inspiring in certain circles. In their wake, groups that claimed a Rosicrucian heritage indeed came into existence. Such as the German Gold- und Rosenkreuzerorder. The Golden Dawn purported to have its roots in that organization, a claim that does not seem to stand up to historical scrutiny. Rosicrucian ideas also influenced the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry that founding members of the Golden Dawn were initiated into. An interesting aside: The mystic reformation that the Fama talks about is referred to as aurora in Thomas Vaughan's famous English translation (1652) which of course not only means "dawn" but also relates to aurum (gold). ;)
 

Aeon418

Obviously, he took the story conveyed by the Fama at face value. According to modern historians, it is by no means certain that the Brotherhood really existed.
Crowley took it at face value? Do you mean that you think Crowley thought the Fama was an actual record of historical events? :confused: I see no evidence of that.

I suspect Crowley viewed the Fama and the Confessio in much the same light as Karl von Eckartshausen's, The Cloud upon the Sanctuary.
 

Abrac

Thanks Michael. I had many questions as I was reading this section and you addressed them all. :)
 

Michael Sternbach

Crowley took it at face value? Do you mean that you think Crowley thought the Fama was an actual record of historical events? :confused: I see no evidence of that.

I suspect Crowley viewed the Fama and the Confessio in much the same light as Karl von Eckartshausen's, The Cloud upon the Sanctuary.

Well, his conclusion that the "rota" must have been the Tarot suggests that he had quite suspended his critical thinking in the matter.
 

Michael Sternbach

Thanks Michael. I had many questions as I was reading this section and you addressed them all. :)

Glad to hear this, Abrac. :)
 

Aeon418

Well, his conclusion that the "rota" must have been the Tarot suggests that he had quite suspended his critical thinking in the matter.
I see nothing in the footnote that says this conclusion is Crowley's own. The note begins, "It is supposed by some scholars...", and Crowley gives no indication as to whether he agrees or disagrees with this opinion.

How this implies a suspension of critical thinking is unclear too. One could start from the assumption that the Fama is a work of fiction or a mystical allegory and still speculate about the Rota that was being used.

Unless the starting premiss is that Crowley was nuts, so lets see how we can interpret everything to advance that position.