DianeOD
This thread is going to be mostly about *methods* for researching where cards came from, were originally used, and so on.
It is difficult to draw the line between criticising an historical *method* and putting down people who use that method, ... but let's try.
Ok: Huck and I got onto this tack in the "Bohemian cards" thread.
My argument (I hope Huck's will be repeated below) is that current customs in writing "playing card/Tarot history" certainly produce statistics about numbers of packs, dates, makers and so forth. Nothing wrong with that.
The problem is that those statistics are presented as if they solved the question of where, how and why cards were used in medieval Europe.
Rather than go over the research essays concerning cards (which may upset individuals wh wrote them), I'll explain the difference by talking about cars.
This is a similar, not identical subject, so there will be differences to essays on tarot. Take that for granted.
OK: - Here's the point:
If you start researching any historical object (such as the tarot) by reference to its present-day form, purpose, and usual techinques - and then start going back down in time, looking for where our *modern* forms originated, you miss a lot. You miss words and terms not known today; you miss passin allusions to forms of use that don't exist today .. you interpret what you do find as if the modern form of the thing were its "default" form and use, rather than the one which simply happened to become dominant. You may write a good genealogy, but you are not really writing history.
The real problem with the "Dummett-de Paulis" style, is that it doesn't recognise the difference, and is outraged by the thought that any difference exists.
Here's our "car" example:
If I drive a Ford car, and I know that Ford invented cars (or think I know), and find that the earliest cars in my native America are Ford cars, I might work very hard to find out where and how Ford cards have been made, the addresses and names of the manufacturers, and how much tax they incurred, and whether people railed against them.... that's all very well.
Even if I nod in the direction of 'foreign' cards like Rolls Royce or Honda, or peculiar cars decorated with plastic grass matting, though, I'm still writing a self-justifying history of FORD cars. I'm not actually writing a history of cars in the wider sense, and I'm not even remotely writing a history of "wheeled Transport"
It's fine to write a genealogy of the games and packs existing today in the west.
The real problem starts, as I say, when people believe that in doing this they are writing a *history of western card-use*.
Its is a flawed method to offer arguments without seriously taking time and effort to determine whether or not what we now have is always the form of the thing, and whether we are writing a "genealogy" or a "history" - because the latter requires a broader historical, geographical and technical investigation before you can put surviving artefacts into their now-gone context.
If someone doe not recognise the difference between a history of Ford cars, and the history of wheeled transport, we've got problems.
You can be sure, then, that is someone mentions other types of wheeled transport which co-existed or preceded cars - such as chariots, or trams, or pony-carts, the hard-nosed investigator of Fords will wave them away with mutters of "irrelevant" and "ridiculous"
They may calmly ask you why you think anyone in their right minds would use a pony-cart after the car was invented, and point out to you that we have piles of American town-halls with records about parking fines since Ford's day - but where are the records of fines for parking chariots, or pony-carts, eh??
It's because the person doesn't really believe other forms of wheeled transport are, in fact 'wheeled transport' that they confuse genealogical researches with historical research.
The history of card-use in Europe is not by definition a genealogy of the forms of card, or of card-games which are most numerous in our present day. Simple as that.
I don't care which kind of history people want to write. I object when they don't define what they are doing accurately. The premises on which one builds determine the structural integrity of the entire edifice.
I think it far better to try, as best one can, to analyse the things which make up what remains to us of an artefact.
Then to be sure you know all the terms in older sources that will relate to what you are studying. let's consider cards again
To really write the history of western cards, I belive you have to consider separately
(i) the history and variety of MATERIALS used.. they may indicate lines of transmission. Not just paper, as we use now, but all the other types of 'token' card to be found: shell, ivory, .. what kind of things are engraved on them... not just recognisable suit signs and so forth.
(ii) the history and variety of IMAGERY.. what antecedents do they have in the west... in older or related (albeit distant) societies and cultures... this can illuminate transmission lines, the agent of transmission, maybe even original forms of use and meaning for our extant figures on card.
(iv) the VOCABULARY: try to generate a Glossary as *inclusive* as possible, because without that, you'll overlook references for sure.
I am certain that "paginas" refers to card-use. And that alone makes it relevant, regardless of what kind of card-use it might have been.
There's more to say, but I'm bored.. and no doubt are you all....
________
It is difficult to draw the line between criticising an historical *method* and putting down people who use that method, ... but let's try.
Ok: Huck and I got onto this tack in the "Bohemian cards" thread.
My argument (I hope Huck's will be repeated below) is that current customs in writing "playing card/Tarot history" certainly produce statistics about numbers of packs, dates, makers and so forth. Nothing wrong with that.
The problem is that those statistics are presented as if they solved the question of where, how and why cards were used in medieval Europe.
Rather than go over the research essays concerning cards (which may upset individuals wh wrote them), I'll explain the difference by talking about cars.
This is a similar, not identical subject, so there will be differences to essays on tarot. Take that for granted.
OK: - Here's the point:
If you start researching any historical object (such as the tarot) by reference to its present-day form, purpose, and usual techinques - and then start going back down in time, looking for where our *modern* forms originated, you miss a lot. You miss words and terms not known today; you miss passin allusions to forms of use that don't exist today .. you interpret what you do find as if the modern form of the thing were its "default" form and use, rather than the one which simply happened to become dominant. You may write a good genealogy, but you are not really writing history.
The real problem with the "Dummett-de Paulis" style, is that it doesn't recognise the difference, and is outraged by the thought that any difference exists.
Here's our "car" example:
If I drive a Ford car, and I know that Ford invented cars (or think I know), and find that the earliest cars in my native America are Ford cars, I might work very hard to find out where and how Ford cards have been made, the addresses and names of the manufacturers, and how much tax they incurred, and whether people railed against them.... that's all very well.
Even if I nod in the direction of 'foreign' cards like Rolls Royce or Honda, or peculiar cars decorated with plastic grass matting, though, I'm still writing a self-justifying history of FORD cars. I'm not actually writing a history of cars in the wider sense, and I'm not even remotely writing a history of "wheeled Transport"
It's fine to write a genealogy of the games and packs existing today in the west.
The real problem starts, as I say, when people believe that in doing this they are writing a *history of western card-use*.
Its is a flawed method to offer arguments without seriously taking time and effort to determine whether or not what we now have is always the form of the thing, and whether we are writing a "genealogy" or a "history" - because the latter requires a broader historical, geographical and technical investigation before you can put surviving artefacts into their now-gone context.
If someone doe not recognise the difference between a history of Ford cars, and the history of wheeled transport, we've got problems.
You can be sure, then, that is someone mentions other types of wheeled transport which co-existed or preceded cars - such as chariots, or trams, or pony-carts, the hard-nosed investigator of Fords will wave them away with mutters of "irrelevant" and "ridiculous"
They may calmly ask you why you think anyone in their right minds would use a pony-cart after the car was invented, and point out to you that we have piles of American town-halls with records about parking fines since Ford's day - but where are the records of fines for parking chariots, or pony-carts, eh??
It's because the person doesn't really believe other forms of wheeled transport are, in fact 'wheeled transport' that they confuse genealogical researches with historical research.
The history of card-use in Europe is not by definition a genealogy of the forms of card, or of card-games which are most numerous in our present day. Simple as that.
I don't care which kind of history people want to write. I object when they don't define what they are doing accurately. The premises on which one builds determine the structural integrity of the entire edifice.
I think it far better to try, as best one can, to analyse the things which make up what remains to us of an artefact.
Then to be sure you know all the terms in older sources that will relate to what you are studying. let's consider cards again
To really write the history of western cards, I belive you have to consider separately
(i) the history and variety of MATERIALS used.. they may indicate lines of transmission. Not just paper, as we use now, but all the other types of 'token' card to be found: shell, ivory, .. what kind of things are engraved on them... not just recognisable suit signs and so forth.
(ii) the history and variety of IMAGERY.. what antecedents do they have in the west... in older or related (albeit distant) societies and cultures... this can illuminate transmission lines, the agent of transmission, maybe even original forms of use and meaning for our extant figures on card.
(iv) the VOCABULARY: try to generate a Glossary as *inclusive* as possible, because without that, you'll overlook references for sure.
I am certain that "paginas" refers to card-use. And that alone makes it relevant, regardless of what kind of card-use it might have been.
There's more to say, but I'm bored.. and no doubt are you all....
________
~Rosanne
