From news.scruz.net!miwok!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.telstra.net!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!news.mira.net.au!pumpkin.pangea.ca!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!hunter.premier.net!wdcpop.dra.net!news.dra.com!news-xfer.netaxs.com!europa.clark.net!feed1.news.erols.com!insync!news.io.com!news.eden.com!not-for-mail Tue May 6 17:09:05 1997 Path: news.scruz.net!miwok!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.telstra.net!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mel.aone.net.au!news.mira.net.au!pumpkin.pangea.ca!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!hunter.premier.net!wdcpop.dra.net!news.dra.com!news-xfer.netaxs.com!europa.clark.net!feed1.news.erols.com!insync!news.io.com!news.eden.com!not-for-mail From: "J. Karlin" Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.tarot,alt.divination,alt.magick,alt.pagan.magick Subject: Re: Various: Tarot Attributions Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 10:59:49 +0000 Organization: Eden Matrix Online Service Lines: 72 Message-ID: <336C6C1C.4B65@eden.com> References: <334F6766.1A95@eden.com> <33519F46.2C23@mail.sendanet.es> <3355F90C.7BAA@eden.com> <335E7487.6C0E@sprynet.com> <3360AB4D.3A3F@eden.com> <33662943.7B7F@us.ibm.com> <336696B1.76C0@us.ibm.com> <336B7573.6B81@ibm.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: net-7-220.austin.eden.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Xref: news.scruz.net alt.magick.tyagi:11022 alt.tarot:16965 alt.divination:10337 alt.magick:95502 alt.pagan.magick:3551 Bob O'Neill wrote: > ***************************** > I think your reading of Waite is accurate on the Wheel - I think the > implication is deliberate. He got the idea from the French Occultists. > My disagreement is more like: Waite and the occultists didn't have much > historical information on the Tarot deck - basically they didn't know > that it was devised in Italy in the 15th century. You're generalizing too much here. Waite writes--- "I end, therefore, the history of this subject by repeating that it has no history prior to the fourteenth century, when the first rumours were heard concerning cards. They may have existed for centuries, but this period would be early enough, if they were only intended for people to try their luck at gambling or their luck at seeing the future; on the other hand, if they contain the deep intimations of Secret Doctrine, then the fourteenth century is again early enough, or at least in this respect we are getting as much as we can." And, more than this he says re: what Court de Gebelin made of the history of tarot--- "He made enquiries concerning it and ascertained that it was in circulation over a considerable part of Europe--- Spain, Italy, Germany and the South of France. It was in use as a game of chance or skill, after the ordinary manner of playing-cards; and he ascertained further how the game was played." ---and this directly disputes Dummett's notion that Court de Gebelin was little interested in tarot's use AS A GAME. Finally, he concluded on Court de Gebelin's findings--- "But it was in use also for the higher purpose of divination or fortune-telling, and with the help of a learned friend he discovered the significance attributed to the cards, together with the method of arrangement adopted for this purpose." Of course, one of things Dummett slams in 'Game of Tarot' is this notion that divination with tarot was ALSO in use at the time. He claims that Court de Gebelin originated that usage. AND, as I pointed out a couple of weeks ago, even though he now admits that he was wrong (although he never has the courage to point out he had been previously in error on this point), and that fortune-telling with tarot WAS going on BEFORE Court de Gebelin began writing about it, he has not seen fit to point out the importance of that admission, which is simply that Waite's original analysis of Court de Gebelin's contribution to understanding the way in which the cards were used for this purpose MAY have been 'discovered' instead of 'invented'. This is just one more reason to question whether Dummett can be considered a reliable source for ANY reasonable or responsible interpretation of the facts behind the development of occult tarot. I offer this as an example that what 'occultists' REALLY thought about the history of tarot and the degree to which they separated their knowledge about the 'facts' from their speculations about the symbolism is NOT a story that has been accurately told yet. (jk)