Thanks for that reply...
I have not been able to track where the comment was made that the unpublished lectures were given by someone other than Jung... and the book this is mentioned in certainly led me to think that they were correctly attributed to him... but I am not a Jungian, nor do I consider his views as highly as many others do.
With regards to Jung's own quotes on the subject of Tarot, and in addition to the one you mention above (his best known, and found in para. 81 of vol. 9.1 of the CW), here are a couple of others (which can be found in
C. G. Jung Letters, selected and edited by G. Adler in two volumes, and published by Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1976):
(letter to Mrs Eckstein, in English, 16/09/30 ... ie, over 30 years prior to his death):
Yes, I know of the Tarot. It is, as far as I know, the pack of cards origininally used by the Spanish gypsies, the oldest cards historically known. They are still used for divinatory purposes.
In a letter to Prof. Rhine (of English Psychical Research Society fame), written some 23 years after the above quoted one (18/02/1953), Jung mentions that the institute has begun to try out methods to investigate 'intuitive methods'. These included the I Ching, geomancy,
Tarot, numerology and astrology.
As he only mentions astrology and the I Ching in the publication which followed these experiments, many people have assumed that Tarot was not included... rather, the results were such as to make their inclusion somehow irrelevent. Here's Jung himself on this, from a letter to Mr A. D. Cornell, dated 09/02/1960:
Under certain conditions it is possible to experiment with archetypes, as my 'astrological experiment' has shown. As a matter of fact we had begun such experiments at the C. G. Jung Institute in Zurich, using the historically known intuitive, i.e., synchronistic methods (astrology, geomancy, Tarot cards, and the I Ching). But we had too few co-workers and too little means, so we could not go on and had to stop.
We can see from this that Jung may at other times have also referred to the Tarot (amongst other tools) when mentioning either the 'mantic', 'intuitive' or 'synchronistic' arts or methods.
It is also not beyond the realm of probability that he did give a series of lectures on the Tarot, given his obvious knowledge of these for over thirty years, but that they may have formed a very 'insignificant' series, and not 'properly' recorded nor incorporated into the body of his work.
I would be just as happy if he, in fact,
never gave this series of lectures... I wonder, if that is the case, what these lectures could be referring to!