This is fascinating. As part of my Qabalah study, I’ve been wrestling with this issue of how the hebrew letters are assigned to tarot trumps, and further how they are mapped to paths on the Tree of Life. Different decks and traditions do it differently, you see. There are at least two annoying quirks about the way the Golden Dawn attributions work, which made me want to look around a bit.
So, I’m reading through this Aeclectic thread on the topic, and found a link to Mark Filipas’ work with the Tarot of Marseille. If you are too lazy to click the link, at least read this quote (which will probably give you the energy to click the link, if tarot scholarship interests you at all):
“Each trump, in effect, illustrates one Hebrew letter, in much the same way as a child’s English primer echoes “A is for apple” and “B is for boy”. Not only do the allegorical subjects exist in alphabetical sequence but virtually every item on each trump can be found with the same initial letter, suggesting the Tarot of Marseilles to be a “visual abecedarium” of the Hebrew alphabet.”
Wow… of course, I have to reserve judgement until I see the whole book, but I think that page convinced me to at least buy the book. It looks really cool.
Also, I was struck by this quote in the aforementioned aeclectic thread:
Several of the meanings we Tarotists associate with the 22 letter names are completely erroneous, such as he meaning “window” (which it does not), chet meaning “field” (which it does not), teth meaning “rod” or “snake” (which it does not), lamed meaning “ox-goad” (which it does not), and tzaddi meaning “fish-hook” (which it does not). These errors appear to have originated in the works of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century linguists (Court de Gebelin is included in this lot!) and were then taken up and promulgated by early occult Tarotists. The same errors are repeated in Tarot books being published today.
hmm… I think I need to learn more about this, as well…