Tzaddi and Heh swap (split from "Is it really a Pelican")

RLG

Aeon418 said:
You can also interpret 'fortress' as 'La Fortezza'. But I'm not into "water-sports" either.

Dwtw

It's not so much an 'interpretation' of fortress as fortezza. That was the actual name of the card in some decks, as far as I know. According to Michael Dummett's The Game of Tarot : "In all early Italian sources, the card is called la fortezza, which (apart from the irrelevant meaning of 'the fortress') can only mean 'fortitude.'"

Granted, I AM interpreting the appearance of the word fortress in verse I:57 to be a reference to the trump of Fortitude/Strength/Lust. I don't feel this is a stretch at all, considering the context of the verse. Nor do I consider the meaning of the name irrelevant, as Dummett does. There were other, presumably better, options for naming this card.

On this matter, as with all things regarding tarot history, I will defer to the opinion of Ross on the subject. Was the trump of Fortitude indeed called fortezza? Does this word mean 'fortress'? And why would such a word be used instead of forza, or fortitudo for the name of the card?

Litlluw
RLG

kwaw

Ross G Caldwell said:
Even if another iconography of "Strength" is used, without the Lion,

I don't think there is any need to remove the Lion of fortitude, as it does not seem a Leonic type Lion anyway. The Lion is the symbol of Leo in respect of its majesty - but there is no kingship in the lion of fortitude, it is a lion overpowered - as a symbol of the Sun we may say this lion represents the Sun in its fall - and the Sun is in its fall in the sign of Libra. But if we wish to remove any trace of ambiguity then yes, why not - remove the lion, replace it with a broken column maybe, or a bear.

The scales* are a bit more difficult - we could at a pinch associate it with Leo via St. Michael - but the question remains why do we have too? They clearly did not feel the need to associate the Sun with the Sun (or with Gemini in respect of its tableau), or the Moon with the Moon (or Cancer) - if subject and iconography can be ignored in their instance then why not with Justice too?

Thereagain, historically I suppose the virtues have always been the most movable of the cards. . .

Kwaw

* quote from a post of mine in another thread:

It is perfectly possible for example to associate 'Strength' with Libra through planetary dignities, Libra as the 'House' of Venus and the 'Fall' of the Sun.

The image itself is as has been noted elsewhere a common mnemonical devise found strategically placed at liturgical stations within cathedrals and churches, symbolic of the 'Triumph of Faith'. As a mnemonical device within a Christian context then the most obvious associations will bring to mind the stories of Daniel in Lion den, and the angel who seizes the Jaws of the Lion, and of Samson and Delilah.

In another post on the Hebrew letters I have shown how the story of Daniel and the Lion is associated with the symbolism of Libra.** I think the story of Samson and Delilah can also be associated with Libra through the planetary dignities of Venus and the Sun.

The Lion is a symbol of the Sun, Royalty and Leo; but represent only 'half' the story, to simply then allocate it to Leo I feel doesn't take into account the full symbolism, of the the image of the woman who has seized the Jaws of the Lion; as also the Lion is seemingly overpowered by the woman it seems to me 'undignified' as a correspondence with Leo. Who is the woman? If we take the Lion as a symbol of Samson then the woman is Delilah. Samson is obviously Leonine, the root of his name SMSVN is SMS, meaning Sun, he wears the skin of a lion. The root of the name DLYLH is DLY, meaning 'water pitcher, Aquarius'. So in Samson and Delilah we have the zodiacal pairing Leo/Aquarius, opposite signs of the zodiac, the house and detriment signs of the Sun. Delilah is a 'foreign woman', symbolised by the planet Venus [the marriage to foreign woman was frowned upon at certain periods and was associated with the temptation to worship foreign divinities, Astarte/Venus was associated with this through the story of King Soloman]. Both Venus and the Sun are associated with Libra as the House of Venus and the Fall of the Sun, and to me fits in with the image of the strong woman in whose hands the Lion is seized. We may note also that the magical image of the 26th degree of Libra is of a woman and lion. The story also includes of course references to Sagittarius and Aries; but I feel it is Libra that the two main protagonists come together within the dignities, positive and negative, of one sign.

Of Justice we may note that in the Sefer Yetzira the letter Kaf is attributed to the Sun. One of the meanings of Kaf is the pans of a pair of scales, thus if we wish to associate the cards with hebrew letters then the scales of the figure could be seen as a reference to the Sun, ruler of Leo.

**RE: Daniel and the Lion, not sure if it is the post I was referring to above, but I mention Daniel and the Lion a little here: http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=434708&postcount=21

kwaw

RLG said:
Dwtw

It's not so much an 'interpretation' of fortress as fortezza. That was the actual name of the card in some decks, as far as I know. According to Michael Dummett's The Game of Tarot : "In all early Italian sources, the card is called la fortezza, which (apart from the irrelevant meaning of 'the fortress') can only mean 'fortitude.'"

Granted, I AM interpreting the appearance of the word fortress in verse I:57 to be a reference to the trump of Fortitude/Strength/Lust. I don't feel this is a stretch at all, considering the context of the verse. Nor do I consider the meaning of the name irrelevant, as Dummett does. There were other, presumably better, options for naming this card.

On this matter, as with all things regarding tarot history, I will defer to the opinion of Ross on the subject. Was the trump of Fortitude indeed called fortezza? Does this word mean 'fortress'? And why would such a word be used instead of forza, or fortitudo for the name of the card?

Litlluw
RLG

For examples see the table under Archaic Orderings here (the name fortezza appears in all of the 8 lists):

http://l-pollett.tripod.com/cards26.htm

It means fortress, stonghold or (moral) strength:

http://dictionary.reverso.net/italian-english/fortezza

I think wordplay was used in the naming and iconography of some of the tarot - I think the name of bagatelle for instance puns on the meaning of both one skilled in the arts of trickery and tomfoolery and a thing of little value (being the lowest of the trumps in gameplay).

Aeon418 said:
Remove the Emperor's clothes and Isis is Unveiled.

The Emperor is . . . a (divine) transvestite?

Aeon418

kwaw said:
The Emperor is . . . a (divine) transvestite?

Or an ART-ist.

Aeon418

RLG said:
Granted, I AM interpreting the appearance of the word fortress in verse I:57 to be a reference to the trump of Fortitude/Strength/Lust. I don't feel this is a stretch at all, considering the context of the verse.

I have no objections to you interpreting I:57 in that way. In the context of your personal understanding of the text it may be highly significant. But I think it is a mistake to take personal interpretation, project it outward and present it as the solution. Once you start down that road you stand a good chance of ending up in the same fruit-basket as the various reincarnations of Aleister Crowley.

Ross G Caldwell

kwaw said:
I don't think there is any need to remove the Lion of fortitude, as it does not seem a Leonic type Lion anyway.

That's all true, but it misses the point about the authority of the initiated tradition of Tarot attributions. Crowley was working in this belief system, not by rational argumentation based on historical study.

Crowley was taught, and believed, that the GD attributions, given in the Cipher Manuscript, were the true ancient tradition (even though he knew it was forged), and that Levi's "Continental" system was a blind, which the French occultists mistakenly followed. The Cipher Ms. states the reason for the counterchange of Justice and Strength as:

"VIII Justice = [Lamed] and [Libra]
And XI Strength = [Teth] and [Leo] which
causeth a transposition
for these are cognate symbols
but at one time the sword of
Justice was the Egyptian
knife symbol of the sickle
of Leo while the scales
meant the [Sun] having
quitted the balance point
of the highest declination.
To the female and the lion
gave the idea of [Libra] repressing the
fire of Vulcan ([Saturn] in [Libra]
exalted. But earliest was
the lion goddess to [Leo] and Ma
to [Libra] with her scales. And this
is better."
(fols. 54-55; words in [brackets] are symbols in the original document)

As far as Crowley was concerned, there were correct and ancient attributions for the Tarot, the Initiated Tradition. Any change, such as he proposed for Tzaddi and Heh - and Aquarius and Aries going with the Trumps not the Letters/Paths - had to come from the same initiated source - the Secret Chiefs.

Trying to solve the problem posed in I:57 suggests an implicit recognition of the authority of the Secret Chiefs, since they issued the challenge in the first place. History and reason do not recognize a problem. Thus if anyone comes along with a "better" solution than Crowley's, they must be playing the initiate's game, and therefore assume the mantle of prophet with the authority to make the change.

It does not make sense, to care about it, in any other way.

Added: thanks Steve, you suggest there IS another way it makes sense to care about the problem - in order to present better proof of the supernatural origin of the book. Solving the problem of I:57 more elegantly than Crowley - leaving no room for dispute - helps show that there was a problem in the first place, and gives additional proof that the author of the book knew more than Crowley or anybody could have.

kwaw

Ross G Caldwell said:
That's all true, but it misses the point about the authority of the initiated tradition of Tarot attributions. Crowley was working in this belief system, not by rational argumentation based on historical study.

Yes, I know - but he does seek to present them as 'proofs' of Liber Al's supranatural source, which does require some rationalisation in the justification of such - all in all I say he fails to do so, rather than proof we are presented with a mess. And to accept it on the basis of 'because he said so' as if it were an' item of faith' would be to go against everything he stood for.

The Cipher Ms. states the reason for the counterchange of Justice and Strength as:

"VIII Justice = [Lamed] and [Libra]
And XI Strength = [Teth] and [Leo] which
causeth a transposition
for these are cognate symbols
but at one time the sword of
Justice was the Egyptian
knife symbol of the sickle
of Leo while the scales
meant the [Sun] having
quitted the balance point
of the highest declination.
To the female and the lion
gave the idea of [Libra] repressing the
fire of Vulcan ([Saturn] in [Libra]
exalted. But earliest was
the lion goddess to [Leo] and Ma
to [Libra] with her scales. And this
is better."
(fols. 54-55; words in [brackets] are symbols in the original document)

Thanks for that, I have read the cipher document, but it was a long time ago and I didn't recall that segment.

Ross G Caldwell

kwaw said:
Yes, I know - but he does seek to present them as 'proofs' of Liber Al's supranatural source, which does require some rationalisation in the justification of such - all in all I say he fails to do so, rather than proof we are presented us with a mess.

Would you describe yours and RLG's efforts then, as trying to present better proofs of the Book's supernatural origin than Crowley managed to do?

Thanks for that, I have read the cipher document, but it was a long time ago and I didn't recall that segment.

It's interesting, and foundational in Crowley's thought. Folio 33 looks to me like it contains Crowley's handwriting - perhaps he had the manuscript from Mathers, and added his own notes.

http://hermetic.com/gdlibrary/cipher/

kwaw

Ross G Caldwell said:
Would you describe yours and RLG's efforts then, as trying to present better proofs of the Book's supernatural origin than Crowley managed to do?

Are you saying that 'good thelemites' should just accept it as a matter of faith even though they find it more confusing than enlightening? Personally I have no interest in thelema as another 'religion'. Why are you and aeon418 making it an issue about the person, making ad hominen attacks by ridiculing anyone who questions Crowley's proofs as seeking to take on the mantle of prophet?

Ross G Caldwell

kwaw said:
Are you saying that 'good thelemites' should just accept it as a matter of faith even though they find it more confusing than enlightening?

Naturally, I wouldn't suggest that good Thelemites should do anything in particular - unless I'm being directly asked for advice

It just seems that there is no point in playing this game if you don't accept that there is a problem in the first place, and the only reason there IS a problem is because of a supernatural voice saying there is.

So either one's own solution is better because one has access to the source of the voice - being the "prophet" referred to immediately after the problem is posed - or, one is trying to present a more rational solution to the problem in order to bolster the idea that the voice was real in the first place (Crowley's "proofs", showing the various prophecies and conundrums it apparently solves, etc.).