From eoneill@ibm.net Thu Jun 19 15:16:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: from kudonet.com by kudo20.kudonet.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA02007; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 15:16:08 -0700 Received: from vera.nni.com by kudonet.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA22662; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 15:16:30 -0700 Received: from out2.ibm.net ([165.87.194.229]) by vera.nni.com (Netscape Mail Server v2.02) with ESMTP id AAA177 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:17:56 -0400 Received: from default (slip166-72-241-80.tn.us.ibm.net [166.72.241.80]) by out2.ibm.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA104454 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:16:21 GMT Message-ID: <33A9AEBC.4B2B@ibm.net> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:12:12 -0400 From: "Bob O'Neill" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nagasiva Subject: Re: Tarot History (was .... and Re: 'Real' vs. 'Nonhistorical....) References: <5nlpss$rm@kudo20.kudonet.com> <339E49A8.7CCB@eden.com> <5nto1k$dv5@kudo20.kudonet.com> <33A251F1.6979@eden.com> <5oc011$qqd@kudo20.kudonet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit content-length: 2777 Status: RO > nagasiva: > >> please mention some earlier occultist-types than de Gebelin and Levi.... If you mean by occultist-types: reading with the cards - Then the answer is that de Gebelin is the earliest author. There are some few hints of earlier reading and some hints that ordinary cards were used earlier. But de Gebelin essentially "invented" reading. But if you mean something broader by "occultist-types" - Something like: saw the Trumps as a symbolic system to be used individually to understand the psychological stages leading to satori - Then, there is evidence that this kind of "occult" usage is as old as the cards themselves. This is discussed by Michael Dummett (Game of Tarot) - but he is a sceptic It is discussed at length in O'Neill Tarot Symbolism - available from Weiser and New Leaf Distributors. Amazon.com can get you a copy also. Giles book on the Tarot also discusses it. But this evidence is all indirect - There are bits and pieces of literary references - detailed in Dummett's Game of Tarot and also reviewed in Kaplan, Encyclopedia of the Tarot - I think he gives the texts of all of the early reference to the Tarot in volumes I and III. As far as we know, no one prior to de Gebelin sat down and wrote a whole book on Tarot and the "occult" or "esoteric" or whatever. So in one sense, you can start with de Gebelin. But you will miss out on the possibility of a couple of hundred years of development - during which the Tarot was seen as a guide to god-union but nobody wrote a book about it. If you start with de Gebelin - You start with a late and distorted view that the Tarot is about reading - Please don't get the impression that this is the important part of Tarot. > >"I'm beginning to compile a small list of names for further study in > >the origins of tarot as a field..."... > as a field of study and practical *occult* application (rather than > card games or the collection or creation of artwork or emblems or > however you'd like to categorize them). > You left out "as a guide to self-realization" If you include that then the list changes significantly. If you restrict the "occult" uses to reading with the cards - then de Gebelin is a good starting point. > >you wished to discuss the 'origins of tarot'. > that is correct, as an arcane tool of divination and reflection which > may be utilized to communicate esoteric ideas in a directed manner or > to construct a syncretic symbol-set useful to ceremonial magicians > with these in mind. > If you are serious about the "reflection" part, then the list of books to read is very, very different than the list for "divination" and "ceremonial magic". The Tarot is richer than just "divination" and "ceremonial magic" Please let me know if I can be of help. Bob