| |
Robert O'Neill's Tarot Symbolism
Book review
by Michael J. Hurst
This bookreview is abridged from its first appearance
on Michael's Carte
da Trionfi site
Tarot Symbolism
By Robert V. O'Neill, Ph.D.
Robert V. O'Neill wrote what is probably the most interesting
of all the historically oriented Tarot books. It is 392
pages and expresses the author's view that early Tarot
was in fact virtually all the things claimed by the eighteenth-century
occultists and twentieth-century neo-Jungian interpreters,
more or less. The book claims that occultists have done
much to "elucidate the meaning of the symbols", and "many
occultist interpretations are justified", while taking
care to reject none of the occult sciences as possible "influences" on
Tarot. Because occultist views of Tarot have held center
stage in terms of Tarot interpretation for over two centuries,
and because this book is the most notable apologetic for
the historicity of their interpretations, O'Neill's work
is must reading for anyone interested in either occult
or historical Tarot studies.
O'Neill devised a novel approach in arguing for the historicity
of occult Tarot, however. First, he argues against a systematic
design in terms of a coherent sequence of the trumps. Second,
he argues against a systematic design in terms of congruent
content of the trumps, the kind of thematic design wherein
all the trumps are interpreted in terms of a single source
or type of source material. Instead, he presents the subject
matter as diverse, and the sequence as merely a vague progression.
These two conclusions constitute a nearly-complete rejection
of the earlier occult systems of meaning, all of which
took a unified content (unified within each of several
layers of correspondence) and precisely ordered sequence
as key to understanding Tarot. Although O'Neill rejects
the earlier occultist interpretations of the Tarot trumps
as a coherent, precisely ordered group, he adopts most
of their various and conflicting interpretations of the
individual cards. These three elements of his approach
are closely interrelated, and shape the structure of the
book.
No Sequential Meaning or Mapping
The theories presented by generations of occultists were
primarily systems of Qabalistic and astrological correspondence.
They associated each of the 22 allegorical cards with one
of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and thereby with
a host of other esoteric correspondences including astrological
subjects and Paths of the Tree of Life. This essential
core of occult Tarot is rejected by O'Neill, who notes
in Chapter 10 that "there are correspondences, but nothing
so simple as reducing the whole symbolism to the Tree of
Life... There is sufficient evidence to postulate that
Kabbalah had an influence on the designers." He concludes
that some Qabalistic "influence" is "increasingly plausible
at this stage in our explorations." (Page 253-4.) Introducing
an appendix to that chapter, O'Neill is a bit more clear.
"[...] any such exploration must be relegated to the sphere
of pure speculation. Since we are not compelled by logic
or by the symbols themselves to accept any of the traditional
assignments, we should feel free to explore new possibilities.
[...] In many cases, understanding the relationship of
the occult sciences to the Tarot requires that one make
use of the imagination. It is at this level that the cards
have their greatest appeal." (Page 257)
Every chapter, as well as the appendices, relies on intuitional
messages (i.e., vague analogies) and the abandonment of
traditional images and sequence in favor of occult images
and interpretations of those images outside of their sequential
context. In Tarot, sequence conveys meaning. The cards'
rank or place in the sequence is in fact its most defining
characteristic. The Pope triumphs over the Emperor, both
Love and Death over the Pope, and the Angel of Judgment
over all that. Sequence conveys meaning. Likewise, in Hebrew
letter mysticism, sequence is also essential to meaning.
Implicitly or explicitly denying the significance of the
original order, (to permit free association based on simplistic
and often far-fetched analogies to the images taken out
of context), is one of the techniques employed by contemporary
Tarot enthusiasts. This is especially appropriate for fortune
telling, where each card is interpreted either in isolation
or in a new context of a randomly selected spread. O'Neill
adopts this modern approach not just in this appendix but
throughout. He rejects any systematic sequential meaning
or coherent overall design, and adopts diverse and even
conflicting analogies as the intended meaning. This effectively
conceals the inescapable fact that esoteric interpretation
cannot make sense of the clear meaning of the images (e.g.,
Justice as an allegory of justice) or their place in the
Tarot sequence.
In his long (and reasonably interesting) discussion of
numerology, O'Neill presents no historical connection between
the trump subjects of historical Tarot decks and the numbers
they allegedly symbolized. His free association is based
mainly on nineteenth-century occultist decks. Two things
become clear from the presentation. First, O'Neill could
find nothing in historical Tarot decks which even vaguely
suggests numerological symbolism. Second, modern occult
Tarot decks did incorporate numerological symbolism into
the Tarot trumps, and they did it systematically! Given
the information in O'Neill's chapter, those are the legitimate
conclusions. What does O'Neill conclude?
"There is ample evidence that numerology was an element
of the Renaissance mindset. It was available and formed
a part of the education of the Renaissance Christian. There
is ample evidence of the use of numerology in Renaissance
art and poetry. So there is sufficient reason to believe
that some elements of numerology would be incorporated
into the design of the cards." (Page 316)
O'Neill knows that it would be absurd to defend any theory
of systematic numerological symbolism in the trumps, so
he does not attempt that. When a researcher deeply committed
to occult content in early Tarot cannot find it, that is
the real historical conclusion to be noted, and as such
this chapter (like the others in O'Neill's) is valuable.
Instead of drawing the common sense conclusion, O'Neill
suggests that some arbitrary and unidentified subset of
the trumps does show numerological symbolism, or at least
may do so... and even this extremely weak position must
be defended with fallacious examples culled from nineteenth
century occult Tarot.
No Identifiable Subject Matter
O'Neill assumes that Tarot was the product of Renaissance
sensibilities, and specifically an eclectic synthesis of
Neoplatonic magic and mysticism, drawing from various esoteric
and exoteric traditions. Chapter 3, discussing the Italian
Renaissance, concludes with the following.
"Renaissance man was preoccupied with the magic, mysticism
and enigmatic imagery he found in the late Hellenistic
and Roman literature. He synthesized these components with
the Christian and Italian elements already a part of his
culture. The synthesis was then projected in his art, poetry
and, we hypothesize, in the Tarot. He was concerned to
synthesize all sources of wisdom into a single, integrated
system. Thus, it is unlikely that the explanation of the
Tarot symbols will be found in any single source. [...]
The remaining studies [chapters of his book], therefore,
will focus on individual elements or sources, developing
the historical background to the point that we can understand
how and why each element might have formed a part of the
syncretism." (p 96)
Such an anything-goes, kitchen-sink syncretism was a preoccupation
of the nineteenth-century occultists who developed occult
Tarot, and a less extravagant blend of philosophy, mysticism,
and magic was pursued by an intellectual elite during the
Italian High Renaissance, (beginning some decades after
Tarot's invention). Because of that, it is trivially easy
to find or create analogies between the nineteenth-century
inventions of occult Tarot and the fifteenth-century Renaissance
magi whom O'Neill posits as the designers of Tarot.The
nature of that assumed influence, and the methods by which
one might verify or refute the speculation, is never explored,
and thus no explanation for the selection of images and
their sequence is ever offered.
This a priori insistence that there can be no coherent
explanation for the images and their sequence is not defended,
except by the repeated observation that the esoteric interpretations,
as presented by their occultist originators, don't work
very well. O'Neill is admitting any, even all, esoteric
subject matter that has credentials dating back to Renaissance
Europe, (and some exoteric ones as well), but he is adopting
none of them systematically. All of the "symbolic systems" are
needed, and assorted elements from those systems must be
combined in an arbitrary manner to account for Tarot's
images and sequence.
"The major onus of this book is to present the symbolic
systems of Renaissance Italy and to suggest how these systems
might have entered into the design of Tarot. The book does
not offer a definitive interpretation but presents the
available data from which such an interpretation might
eventually be constructed." (Page 5)
O'Neill allowed that the pieces might fit together into
a coherent design, but none that he could find and present,
and certainly none that was based on a unified subject
matter. This position has grown more emphatic during the
subsequent two decades. Today (in 2003) O'Neill uses the
expression "definitive interpretation" as a term of derision,
implying that anyone naive enough to search for such a
thing is both ignorant and arrogant in their approach.
O'Neill justifies this concept of a disjointed design by
reference to a syncretic Renaissance mindset, referring
to the writings of late fifteenth-century intellectuals
like Marsilio Ficino and Giovanni Pico (della Mirandola).
His discussion of Renaissance art, sandwiched between heretical
sects and Kabbalah, finds no coherent didactic program
in any such cycles, and dismisses the actual allegorical
meaning of such works.
The absence of systematic design, in terms of either sequential
meaning or subject matter, when combined with occultist
and neo-Jungian free-association (the "intuitional messages"),
provides complete freedom for any interpretation whatsoever,
and a novel justification for the many and conflicting
occultist theories. However, although O'Neill rejects any
grand synthesis or systematic integration of the assorted
elements, he does present a framework for considering this
as something more than a mere grab bag of esoteric images.
"The Joy of No Rules"
The overriding historical thesis of O'Neill's book is
that the Tarot trump cycle is not only interpretable in
this manner, but was in fact created as such an archetypal
myth of mystical passages. According to this view, the
design incorporated elements from many different mystical
paths (including sundry occult sciences) in an inchoate
hodge-podge to emphasize the fact that all paths which
lead to God are in fact the same path. That all paths are
part of the same path is itself an essentially modern,
ecumenical view, (albeit with notable precursors), and
one which would have resulted in ostracismÑor even incinerationÑin
most of the cultures which created the various particular "paths" that
modern writers blur together. The creators of Tarot were
presumably spared this fate because the trump cycle shows
no such thing, at least not in any rationally intelligible
form.
Of course, once one rejects the face value meaning of
an image, one can make up any meaning he finds personally
appealing. In fact, the only real constraint to this unbridled
license and universal eclecticism is the requirement that
the "intuited messages" reflect something current in Renaissance
Italy. The historical problem with such an uncritical approach
is its complete lack of explanatory power. By permitting
any and in fact all interpretations, nothing is explainedÑany
image could be substituted for any of the trump images,
at any point in the sequence, and no contradiction would
arise. The question posed for historical interpretation
is, why were these subjects illustrated in this manner
and in this sequence? In that regard, it is valuable to
consider O'Neill's criticism of the theory presented Gertrude
Moakley, twenty years earlier.
The explanation is that the Tarot is not only a simplification
of Petrarch's scheme, but also a spoof, a ribald take-off
on the solemnity of the original story in the spirit of
the Carnival parade. This explanation is not acceptable
simply because it allows too much freedom. Any lack of
correspondence can be passed off as part of the joke. Therefore,
if the cards match it is taken as positive evidence for
the theory, while any discrepancy is dismissed offhand.
This is too simplistic. (Pages 79-80)
This is a sound argument, and such explanatory weakness
is a valid criticism of Moakley's theory. She imposes few
constraints and therefore explains little about the choice
of images or their sequence. However, O'Neill's argument
against her interpretation is devastating to his own esoteric
sampler view of Tarot. Since his view of early Tarot's
meaning imposes neither sequential nor subject matter constraints,
but permits the arbitrary mixing and matching of subjects,
it is by O'Neill's own standard, "not acceptable". In that
sense, as an historical analysis or theory of interpretation,
Tarot Symbolism has little to offer.
Unlike other historical interpreters of Tarot's meaning,
(e.g., Gertrude Moakley, John Shephard, and Timothy Betts),
O'Neill focuses not on connecting historical Tarot to historical
themes and motifs, but on connecting the speculations of
occult Tarot to Renaissance occultism. Moreover, this is
done via "intuitional messages" read into the symbolism
taken out of context, yielding unlimited freedom of interpretation.
Conclusions
Although O'Neill's journey is not acceptable as an historical
explanation, as an example of a modern revisioning of Tarot
in terms of sundry esoteric systems, Tarot Symbolism is
perhaps the best book written. A great many knowledgable
authors have reinvented Tarot in terms of their favorite
subject matter, and these efforts range from simple theme
decks on any subject imaginable to elaborate metaphysical
systems. Luigi Scapini created a charming and amusing deck
based largely on images from both early printed and handpainted
decks, and also the Oswald Wirth and Waite-Smith decks.
This was an ironic and self-referential theme deck with
the theme being earlier Tarot decks! O'Neill's theory of
Tarot's origin and intended meaning is very much like the
Medieval Scapini deck, in offering a wholly modern interpretation
of Tarot based on a hodge-podge of Tarot lore and legend,
actual history as well as traditional occult and contemporary
psychological projections.
Presenting his esoteric sampler as the intended historical
significance of the Tarot trumps is a deeply appealing
theory to those steeped in modern views of Tarot, however
anachronistic and inherently implausible it may be. It
claims that Tarot was intended to be exactly what we want
it to be, that the fifteenth-century Roman Catholics who
invented Tarot in northern Italy had the same values, attitudes,
and beliefs as twenty-first century Postmodern Pagans telling
fortunes with it in central California. O'Neill's many
historical discussions are interesting in their own right,
and add historical flavor to the otherwise thoroughly modern
interpretation. This is history as it should have been,
as we might wish it had beenÑdelightfully and creatively
anachronistic, and wonderful in that sense.
The other substantial contribution of Tarot Symbolism
lies in its detailed critical review of earlier occult
interpretations. One by one, O'Neill explicitly rejects
the traditional occult explanations, creating a comprehensive
compendium of negative results. Tarot Symbolism presents
a painstaking examination of the many proposed occult systems,
by a competent, knowledgeable, and diligent researcher
sympathetic to such subject matter. Although O'Neill creates
a new theory of occult meaning in early Tarot, he is able
to support none of the occult speculations of the previous
two centuries in anything resembling their original form.
His rejection of them as inadequate, combined with his
argument against explanations as limitlessly accommodating
as his own, ("this explanation is not acceptable simply
because it allows too much freedom"), constitute the most
comprehensive and detailed case ever assembled against
occult content in pre-GŽbelin Tarot.
Unfortunately, O'Neill seems oblivious to both his effective
criticism of the earlier occultists and to his new theory
which presents fifteenth-century Tarot as having been exactly
the same as twentieth-century occult Tarot. Nowhere does
he summarize his systematic rejection of earlier occult
theories of interpretation, thus ignoring the most significant
conclusion of his studies. Instead he leaves the reader
with the impression that the occultists got it right. He
does not even recognize that he has created a new historical
interpretation and theory of origination. Among the elements
of that theory of Tarot's origin and meaning, O'Neill offers
the following:
"The milieu of Tarot's invention was strictly Renaissance
sensibilities, humanistic and steeped in magic and mysticism.
Specifically, it was probably created in a sort of pre-Ficino
Neoplatonic academy." (O'Neill has more recently suggested
a proto-Masonic occult-oriented confraternity.)
The form of the first deck was likely to have been printed
rather than hand-painted. The iconography is that of the
Milanese pattern, forerunner of the Tarot de Marseille
deck.
That is a remarkably elaborate and comprehensive theory,
although explaining nothing about the images and their
sequence. This overwhelming bias toward traditional occult
and contemporary neo-Jungian mysticism colors every page,
and tends to obscure the historical content and occasional
iconographic insight.
[Thank you Michael for permission to abridge & publish
this review in the ATS Newsletter
Please note that the ATS has since republished Bob
O'Neill's Tarot
Symbolism - Jean-Michel David]
|
|
