mjhurst said:
Mary and many other Tarot cultists claim that Dummett et al. are biased and sloppy researchers, but none have yet produced even a single example, out of the thousands of historical references in those books, which demonstrates bad historical scholarship, much less a major conclusion they botched.
I have claimed that Dummett is biased and sometimes expressed his bias through derogatory terms in his books, and that those terms were (consciously or unconsciously) meant to sway readers toward his own perspective. But I have
never claimed he was a sloppy researcher and I don't know of anyone else who has claimed this. I think and have often said that he has done the tarot world a great service through his outstanding research.
Dummett did "botch" (Michael's word) a few things (he's only human), which he and I discussed in a series of letters to each other.
A minor error exists on page 47 of WPC where Dummett says
"The term 'Pentacles', used in occultist packs for the suit of Coins (Italian Denari), is more interesting, since it derives from a linguistic mistake of which A.E. Waite, who first had pentacles put on the suit-signs, was complete aware . . . In his translations from Lévi's writings, Waite simply left the word 'pantacle' untranslated, with the inevitable result that British readers thought it meant 'pentacle.' Waite exploited the misunderstanding . . . calling the suit 'Pentacles'."
Actually Lévi talks somewhere (can't look it up right now) about a pentacle being a perfect pantacle. Therefore, if you want to depict a pantacle, the pentacle is the most ideal representation. It incorporates everything a pantacle stands for. There was no 'mistake' or exploitation involved. BTW, in magick a pantacle and a talisman, though similar, are not exactly the same thing—but that's another matter.
On page 244-245, Dummett wrote that in Tarot of the Bohemians, Papus's argument is fallacious and his great numerological theorum doesn't hold. The fact is that he misunderstood the numerology and the whole point of Papus's system.
I wrote him: "Your analysis of Papus’s numerology is in error. . . . In your letter and book you say “He [Papus] then asserts that this [reductive system] will continue.” But he never asserts this in relation to numbers other than those in the 1/4 series. It is you who have drawn a general theorem from this: “If a number leaves the remainder 1 when divided by 3, its theosophic sum reduces theosophically to 1.” But, in your next paragraph, you apply this to the numbers 2 and 3, which Papus NEVER DOES. And he never intends it to be applied thus. I ask you to look in his book and quote me the exact sentence in which you think he does so. I couldn’t find it. Neither does he give any example involving a reduction to 2 or 3. . . ."
Dummett conceded both these errors and thanked me for the additional information.
In the introduction to WPC, Dummett made the claim that he was not evaluating what he found but presenting only the history, but his terms belie this, and I felt it was important to bring this up both in my review of WPC in Gnosis Magazine and to him directly. [I had two whole pages of examples like the one below that I didn't publish.]
I wrote him: "Such words as “lies” imply moral judgments and attitudes, not facts. For instance, the facts are that Paul Christian told a story that cannot be proved, and he ascribed it to a person who, in fact, did not write it. Declaring Christian to be a “lying charlatan” is a moral judgment and does not belong in a work of pure history that claims to "not be an evaluation" of it. I would like to see the facts demonstrating that Christian’s only motive was to get the public “to believe a falsehood,” as you say in your 2nd to last letter. You yourself have brought up motive, and you claim to know what Christian’s is (as historical fact)."
My criticisms were never meant to disparage the unequaled historical work that Dummett has done. But, he set the basis on which he felt his work should be taken, and I noted his tendency to stray unnecessarily outside of that in a way that I felt weakened his otherwise great strengths.