What makes a "Tarot Historian"?

a matter of style

How an author approaches their subject can often
indicate what they will and won't be considering...

Third Person Objective
This might provide long lists of names and dates,
with the unavoidable gigantic hole in the middle.

First Person Narrative
More conversational and experiential, but workably
to going from point A to point B within a framework.

Omniscient Author
Here is room for fearless improvisation~ unrestricted
by forever having to make allowances for everything.

*

My study of literature allowed me to venture freely
into almost all areas of formal thought and research,
with history, philosophy, psychology, and in general
the humanities being at the core of creative writing.

With history, as with all focused studies, one book
can differ from another as much as fact and fiction.
Ultimately what we select to believe is based on a
broad range of involved research, even with Tarot.

Often the most thrilling 'fact' is intellectual audacity.
For dry words to become thoughts and then reality;
and according to Vladimir Nabokov reality is the only
word that should always be in "quotation" marks.

oh well said, yes. humility & humanity in all things.

mingbop said:

oh well said, yes. humility & humanity in all things.

Click to expand...

But not only for historians.

no, in all things. I have had a day filled with uncaring arrogance and nastyness, hence this post ! lol

Interesting how only yesterday I was going over my own notes for a 'comprehensive' course on tarot knowledge - certainly not as comprehensive as the outline mentioned here, but still with much overlap.

Perhaps this is the difference between my own interests, and the historical interest: for myself, the historical is an important foundational peripheral study that is contiguous with tarot study itself.

Of central 'historical' importance is a sense for the mediaeval worldview and philosophy, mixed with cultural studies and the nature of the social fabric.

This is itself expended by a more detailed study of neo-platonism and the various works that informs much of what much later develops as 'the' western esoteric 'tradition'. Including the thoughts of Iamblichus, Pseudo-Dionysius, Trimethius and others.

Part of this then informs both the proto-renaissance of the Parisian and Provençal regions, and its then full awakening from the northern Italian centres. Its shifts in views of the world (science), art (not only visual), education, and the shifting social fabric.

Going then back to see how Lumiere-type and Romanesque architecture and art became not only transformed, but also provided a foundation, even if re-interpreted.

The alterations in international trade and political relations, the interweavings of inter-religious (and heretical) fertilisation, and the movement of geographical exploration, conquest, and technology (including the arts of paper making, weaving, print-making, and astrological and mathematical knowledge). In addition to the works already mentioned, then, I would add Robert O'Neill's Tarot Symbolism.

This is simply part of the background, for then what is also important is not only an overview of the extent fragments and early cards, but, I would suggest, also the deck as we have it as something having 78 cards (even if there were variations in early extent decks, including the Minchiate).

The structure of the deck, and its possible internal ordering: this is an area that still has much work to be done, both in terms of finding early historical reference, but also in terms of new conjectures and plausible insights (and hence would include the work of Mark Filipas in addition to the ones already mentioned). This in some way take the study away from the purely historical, but in other ways does not, for there is also a certain foundation upon which rests the conjectures and, if paused as questions rather than explanation, becomes part of the acceptable way in which to further research.

In terms of semiotics, I too would personally find such an important element, though would begin not with Saussure, but Poinsot and Locke (the latter also appears to have coined the term outside of the medical sphere, by the way). If one can make a distinction, the latter (with also Augustine in his De Doctrina) are in some way more globally inclusive than the Saussurean approach. Saussure appears to reduce and see things from a linguistic perspective, as though symbols (and signs - these terms are used in different ways in semiotic literature) are all, at base, linguistic, whereas Peirce in some way continues the Poinsot-Lockean semiotic 'élan' that includes, but does not take as a basis, the linguistic model - ahhhh.... now I've got that off my chest back to Tarot!

So for semiotics, I would probably suggest something simple (but not simplistic) such as Deely's Basics of Semiotics (which I have been told has finally recently been republished and updated!).

In terms of the other texts, I would agree with those already mentioned, though again, I perhaps here err away from the pure historical to the philosophical in which the historical plays a role, but is not the goal... and so would not call myself a tarot historian, though interested (very much so) in how this tempers my own more interesting flights of fancy.

Alissa said:

This is a great reference, thank you for putting it together, Ross. Perhaps in time the vision of putting together a bonafide scholarly program will become a reality - with organization like this, it's very encouraging to see and seems a very good platform!

The editor of my illustrated henna books has been going through a similar process while dragging Henna into her anthro thesis. It's frustrating to see certain fields denied the attention they truly deserve just because others are less informed, and may not believe there's a "legitimate" study to the subject.

Click to expand...

That's certainly the case - there are untold numbers of subjects fit to be given a lot of academic and scientific attention, that aren't. It just takes the time and effort of people who believe it deserves this attention, to at least awaken others' interest in the subject, and get the ball rolling.

Sometimes it just takes time for enough study to work up into a considerable body of knowledge, and then one *seminal* study might initiate a discipline. This was what happened with Dummett's "Game of Tarot" in 1980. This put the study of tarot - as well as playing cards - on another level.

Now everyone had a base reference that brought together 200 years of discussion about the subject (the history of tarot cards), presented a lot of new research, and plenty of theoretical conclusions to argue about.

The history of cards and tarot is *still* a marginal field academically, although it has advanced in many ways since 1980. Those academics who do it, do it from the perspective of another, established, discipline (art history, medievalism, sociology). "Ludology" - the study of games - is perhaps the place where it will make the most progress towards becoming an independent discipline - as I think it must, since tarot in particular is such a huge phenomenon is so many ways in the late 20th century, including not only the occult and esoteric sides, but the revival of the game, itself in part because of the renewed attention to the history *as a reaction to the prevailing esoteric aura of tarot*. It is a fascinating study that can only continue to grow.

baba-prague said:

I think a faculty for the study of playing cards - with tarot as (ouch!) a subsection - would probably be more acceptable to the academic community. But it might push things in one particular direction, which would be a shame.

Still, as none of this is likely to happen in a university (just yet) I suppose it's all hypothetical. Fun to imagine putting a course together though. I think it would be a great course at post-grad level, it would touch on so many interesting areas.

Click to expand...

Christina Olsen did her PhD on early tarot in 1993 - not trying to solve the historical questions of who, what, where, when and why, but examining their place in the society of the time.

I can't find her anywhere, so as far as I can her doctorate didn't lead to a professorship. But then, maybe she married and changed her name, so she could be teaching somewhere.

lizziecat said:

I'd probably throw in a few courses on Sociology, Psychology and of course, some classes in Postmodern theory (why should I be the only one that suffers? ). Also, don't forget Art History courses up to Contemporary art, since "history" is right up to yesterday

I just had a horrible thought...can you imagine what would happen if one were doing a MA/PhD in "Tarot Art History" and at the oral defence the external examiner forgot to mention s/he believed Tarot to be "the work of the Devil"? I shudder to think....

Click to expand...

The problem for my "ideal course of studies" is that really, there is no ideal - everybody who studies it will bring the best of their specialty to the interpretation. What anyone lacks, should be made up for by others. That's why it would be so nice to have an actual field with many labourers in it, so that from many perspectives, a much more nuanced view can be gleaned.

It's not enough for one or two people, however brilliant, to offer their angle. We need scores of people to bring their expertise to bear on the subject.

Yes, the study of contemporary tarots is something else; undergrads have to get a broad ("liberal") exposure to many areas, and the time is limited, so if they want to study tarot at the graduate level they have to choose only a few courses that will help them with this.

I chose "history", because my BA and MA were in history. So my angle is history and the historical method. But other fields have their own methodologies I can only borrow from, if I am able (sociology, anthropology, psychology, semiotics/semiology).

lark said:

I think a Tarot Historian also should have one of those hats with a danglie tassle on it.

Click to expand...

I wear a fez sometimes... it has a tassle. Does that count?

Helvetica said:

Ross - in addition to your list, and baba's semiotics and lizziecat's psychology, po-mo theory, etc.- I will add:

Myth: I don't think we can be serious about tarot history (or tarot full stop), without a thorough knowledge of at least Greek and Roman mythology, Biblical mythology, and probably Egyptian and Mesopotamian too. Not because the Egyptians invented the tarot - but because the myths of Greece and Rome, the Bible myths, Egyptian and Mesopotamian myths cast a long shadow over the centuries, and particularly from the Renaissance onwards, played an active role in culture and in the imagination of artists and intellectuals (and even Popes!).

I would put comparative religion alongside, too. You just can't forget the Crusades, they were too influential over everything. And in any case a thorough knowledge of Church history, of the heretic movements of the Middles Ages and beyond (and before) and their gnostic or millenarian antecedents. 14th century is starting too late - many later movements had their roots in the later Roman Empire, and in the flare-up of alternative spirituality of the 12th-13th centuries.

Cultural history - I'll mention the Crusades again, and their influence in Europe. A history of trades and guilds - in particular of the imagiers, paper makers, cathedral builders - not only looking at their economic significance and techniques, but including their rites of initiation, their dedications, their legends and their special signs.

You can't get around it - you have to look at the more esoteric topics, such as alchemy - both its artistic and symbolic significance - and the development of the Cabala (Christian), via Lull and later esotericists.

Classical art (Greek and Roman): the Renaissance rediscovered it, and it influenced all artists, not only in technique, but in subject-matter (e.g. Visconti Strength card).

Then, of course, we'd have to look at the occult movements of France and Britain in the 19th Century, masonry, theosophy, the Golden Dawn; the later Franch Romantics (e.g. Nerval, Baudelaire) and Surrealists (e.g. Breton), and their borrowing from and influence on the occult Tarot and esoteric thought generally.

I'm sure we can think of more to pack into that course

Click to expand...

I think you've just outlined a lifetime of study here!

Of course... there's not enough time for everything. That's why we need more people studying tarot (and I will always add *playing cards*, because historically speaking, they are the same and occupy the same place in culture until the late 18th century - so whatever processes one chooses to investigate about them will affect both equally, and both express the same cultural concerns).

Then, my concern in making that course was not so much the history of ideas, but the history of an object, the tarot pack. The interpretation of its symbolic content was only touched on, although I am fully aware that is the overriding interest of just about everybody.

In which case your list is more applicable, with the caveat that, remaining with the purpose of this thread, to define a "tarot historian" (not a tarot artist, or a tarot reader), historical methodology as a discipline is a must. It is essential for the historian to know what evidence is and how to use it, and what its limits are. Chronology is the backbone of history, and before anything else, the chronology must be established, whatever its uncertainties.

Nothing is written in stone, of course, except for the existence of the evidence itself.

And I think the Tarot Historian should wear a lemniscate as headgear

Click to expand...

I agree! As long as it has a tassle...