A Dummies Guide to Historical Research

It is about this area/forum called Historical Research that I wish to take some minutes of your time.

I have had Tarot in my life for over 30 years. For longer than Tarot I have been interested in History. I did not take History at University. In History I am a rank amateur- a well read amateur who wanders over this the past of this World with interest and excitement. Ten years ago History and Tarot came together for me. I had always only had the RWS, so my reading was based on the occult view of Tarot. Then I was given a heap of books one of which was RV O'neill's Tarot Symbolism another was Italian Illuminations. I had an epiphany. All my background in classical Catholicism,Church history and Ritual, History, Tarot, Abjads and Alphabets, and other related areas came together. I also moved from using the computer for my business to using it for pleasure and information.

I think that posters here will know, that I have tried to participate in these History forums with delight and interest. I have learned much from other posters, through their own insights and links and reading material they have posted. I have an insatiable curiosity and like making connections between things Historical....an example would be the thread about the Keeper of the Pope's Monkey.

Now once I post these things- they are in the Public domain. I never thought I owned them, do not consider them mine, do not need to be credited for discussing them, do not think I have made a startling discovery, do not think I am absolutely right and correct; nor do I think they will change other's points of view ( Do you believe the Phoenicians had a Tarot sequence? ) I do not write research papers- I consistently fail to dot my i's and cross my t's with listing sources; I wander from subject to subject and wish to participate in the wide interesting subject of Tarot History. I do not mind been set straight, I have no ego in this regard.

It seems that there is a Tarot History protocol that I have been unaware of. If it means that I have to cite everyones point of view of discussions, cite every source of information, credit all sources within the forum I will lose interest. I would really appreciate if there could be a discussion about what is expected here- because if it moves from 'avidly interesting speculations' to 'text book paragraphs' and giving everyone credit for everything they post- it will become tedious. I am not talking about incorrect information or plagiarism- I would expect a verbal clip around the ears for that. I think these History forums can be vibrant, and although not for everyone, I enjoy them immensely. Looking at the numbers that have viewed some threads- others have enjoyed them also. So if I have read a book that you introduced me to and I have not said that you are the reason I now know a little bit more on this or that- forgive me- but it won't change. At the time I will thank you for listing the book. It is kind of like listening to an acceptance speech that thanks everyone back to Adam and Eve for their input into the recipients life. I also state for the record, all of the above is due to a very recent feeling I have.
All views looked forward to and appreciated......
-Rosanne

I would say that it depends how posts are presented. If presented as fact, then yes, some evidence is required. If presented as speculation (and my personal feeling is that speculation can be both interesting and fun) then I think it can be taken as just that - with less evidence.

What I don't think is good is stuff presented as fact but shown completely out of context. Or that's factually wrong (demonstrably so) or, God help us - though I hope this would be very rare indeed - that uses false citations.
That's all potentially very misleading - whether intended or not - and quite honestly makes the forum look a bit laughable if it's left uncommented on. It might be kinder not to comment (and the feeling that it's important to be kind has stopped me from commenting more than I have). But I think it's helpful in a broader sense to point out serious issues with methodology as these posts sit around for ages and are read by a lot of people. Personally I sometimes feel obliged to say something. Though often it would be easier just to raise an eyebrow and keep quiet.

However, I don't come here much so others may want to say a lot more as it may be a good deal more of an issue for them. I was just drawn in initially this time round by - I think - some odd and mistaken comments made about angels in Southwold (I used to live near there). Though to be fair those were not presented as fact, more as speculation, which was good. Perhaps we just need to be careful to distinguish between the two. Otherwise this isn't really a history forum, is it?

Edited to add. Oh no, I remember, it was that stuff about beehive huts in Ireland being used for astronomy that first made me pay attention. Ho hum.

But as I say, as an irregular poster here (though a fairly regular reader) I think it's a decision for those who are more involved.

baba-prague said:

I would say that it depends how posts are presented. If presented as fact, then yes, some evidence is required. If presented as speculation (and my personal feeling is that speculation can be both interesting and fun) then I think it can be taken as just that - with less evidence.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree with you Baba! I think I try to make my posts clear that I am interested and I am speculating- If I have ever stated something Tarot as fact that would be a mistake and not intended, I usually bow to greater expertise.

What I don't think is good is stuff presented as fact but shown completely out of context. Or that's factually wrong (demonstrably so) or, God help us - though I hope this would be very rare indeed - that uses false citations.
That's all potentially very misleading - whether intended or not - and quite honestly makes the forum look a bit laughable if it's left uncommented on. It might be kinder not to comment (and the feeling that it's important to be kind has stopped me from commenting more than I have). But I think it's helpful in a broader sense to point out serious issues with methodology as these posts sit around for ages and are read by a lot of people. Personally I sometimes feel obliged to say something. Though often it would be easier just to raise an eyebrow and keep quiet.

Click to expand...

Could not agree more! I would personally prefer you did not keep quiet- if you felt my posts needed a correction; even if you were to ask if I was just speculating, had I neglected to say so. I usually do not bother to post on fact of Tarot- whats the point?

... Though to be fair those were not presented as fact, more as speculation, which was good. Perhaps we just need to be careful to distinguish between the two. Otherwise this isn't really a history forum, is it?

Click to expand...

It is hard to say that this place can be just History as so much is not known, but I guess I am saying that there is room for more than dry bare bones of what is factual- but you are right it needs to be distinguishable somehow.

I appreciate your input.
~Rosanne

Rosanne said:

I usually do not bother to post on fact of Tarot- whats the point?

Click to expand...

Yes, actually, that's an important comment. I feel much the same. My interest in tarot history only goes up to a certain point and my knowledge is much less deep and detailed than that of many others here, so I don't see that I could add much.

My personal interests - which are more about local stuff, I find the use of the Marias deck structure for divination rather interesting - are a bit too specific to be of much interest to others. Plus there isn't much to show yet anyway as I'm too tied up with doing my art and earning my living.

But in general I can see that one reason that people enjoy speculation here is that it does allow some input, whereas the basic facts are so well-covered now that you'd have to devote a lot of time and effort to be able to contribute anything much at all.

I pretty much agree with what has been stated so far, a lot has to do with presentation.

I think everyone here really likes learning and exploring ideas. We all have a passion for finding the truth. I also truly believe that anyone who has been hanging out here for any substantial amount of time would almost certainly confess to having learned at least a few things.

When considering your question, it occurred to me that I have a "safe radius". At the center of this radius is the assumption that the tarot was invented in 15th Century Italy. I may not personally agree with this assumption, but there is a lot of documentation and evidence that we can all look at and pretty much have to agree that, at least the evidence we have now suggests it to be "very likely".

Dummett set the standard, but accessible sites like Tarot Hermit, Andy's Playing Cards, and Michael's Tarot Notebook continue to provide the factual evidence that, if challenged, must be confronted and bettered .

I consider this the "middle ground" from which the safe radius extends. I'm very willing to move away from that middle ground (and believe that I often encourage others to join me in doing so). Move a bit from there, and it doesn't take too much for people to consider a different perspective. No need for quotes and references and a 1000 pages of theory, just an easy to comprehend viewpoint that others can contemplate.

However, the further away from that "safe radius" we venture, the more, (I believe), it's up to us to provide more and more convincing evidence that we're actually heading somewhere meaningful; and that we're not leading the party on a wild goose chase.

Which brings us back to the presentation of an idea. To say, "Hey gang, I know it's a bit strange, but I was thinking that instead of going to the same stream we always do, let's look over in this area instead. Maybe well find an even better stream than we know of now." To this, people can choose whether to venture out into that unknown, and their expectations are not raised. In fact, it's probably their curiosity and sense of adventure that will most likely kick in.

On the other hand, when someone says "There's a better stream than the one we've been using, and I think we should use it instead," then people have every right to be somewhat suspicious and ask, "Yeah? really?, why should I trust you? Did you bring back some water to show us?" And the further you want to take the party out of that radius, the more evidence I think you should be expected to provide.

Well, I'm no historian, so there's probably an excellent set of criteria for this type of research; but that's my take on it.

I always read your posts with great interest, Rosanne.

I like speculation, too. Most people here do fine--they say, "Here's my idea, I wonder if I'm right, here's some suggestive evidence, what does everyone think?"

Then people look at the stuff, and give it a think, and discussion ensues.

Usually, if the ideas aren't so good, or the facts don't support them, the originator says, "Oh well. Back to the drawing board. Thanks for your input, everyone!" Maybe they revisit the topic later; maybe not. But it's clear that these are mental explorations rather than academic dicta.

Problems emerge if someone presents speculation as fact, obscures facts, diverts attention from legitimate questions (for example, with flurries of mostly irrelevant information), or asserts the existence of definitive information but then does not produce it.

It is not honorable to misrepresent one's training, credentials or professionally-recognized expertise. If someone does imply relevant academic credentials beyond the ordinary (for example, by starting a thread to explain to laypersons the difference between history and historiography, thus implying that oneself is not a layperson), and is asked, what are your credentials? they should answer honestly. Trustworthy academic professionals do not fake expertise. Part of that means acknowledging when you are mistaken.

It is similar to what happens on the chat threads when someone is suffering physically or mentally. People say, "I have no special expertise but the same thing happened to my sister and vitamins helped her," or "I've been seeing a therapist and it helped me a lot." Others say, "I'm a nurse/psychologist/whatever and this might be serious so it's best to get it checked."

It's a matter of common decency to present yourself as a bona fide expert only if you've got the bona fides, and even then, to present your ideas in a clear and concise manner with relevant "unpadded" evidence.

As far as I can tell, most people who post here are honorable amateur historians with mostly interesting ideas and use pretty good judgment about when and how to document their ideas for the sake of interesting discussion.

Debra said:

It is not honorable to misrepresent one's training, credentials or professionally-recognized expertise. If someone does imply relevant academic credentials beyond the ordinary (for example, by starting a thread to explain to laypersons the difference between history and historiography, thus implying that oneself is not a layperson), and is asked, what are your credentials? they should answer honestly.

Click to expand...

It's also not reassuring when you ask someone which university their research is based at - a perfectly ordinary question after they have clearly implied that it's being done for a formal qualification such as a PhD - and they apparently are unable to understand the question and so don't answer it. That rings a whole lot of alarm bells about the veracity of anything from that point on. It's a question of ethics.

I don't care if people here are doing their work as a hobby, a passion or for a university degree - all are valid of course. What I do care about is when one thing is implied when quite another appears to be true. I don't pretend that I'm doing a PhD on the life and times of Lasenic - it's just an interest and it may or may not result in an informal article at some point (in years probably - it's all a bit slow). But if I tried to make it sound like it was formal research material I would expect to lose a lot of credibility. When someone apparently tries to mislead, you have to ask why. It's the "why" that I am still nonplussed about.

I think that's one source of some of the tension on this forum recently. It's a shame, but like most forum things it'll blow over.

le pendu said:

When considering your question, it occurred to me that I have a "safe radius". At the center of this radius is the assumption that the tarot was invented in 15th Century Italy. I may not personally agree with this assumption, but there is a lot of documentation and evidence that we can all look at and pretty much have to agree that, at least the evidence we have now suggests it to be "very likely".

Click to expand...

Your radius and mine are different shapes Robert, that is a great analogy though. Mine is more star shaped with things like the Phoenicians right out on one of the points. I say so quite openly I think. The point does not reach out to Atlantis or Robert Graves, as much as the romantic in me would have it so.
Yes you do encourage exploration.

Which brings us back to the presentation of an idea. To say, "Hey gang, I know it's a bit strange, but I was thinking that instead of going to the same stream we always do, let's look over in this area instead. Maybe well find an even better stream than we know of now." To this, people can choose whether to venture out into that unknown, and their expectations are not raised.
On the other hand, when someone says "There's a better stream than the one we've been using, and I think we should use it instead," then people have every right to be somewhat suspicious and ask, "Yeah? really?, why should I trust you? Did you bring back some water to show us?" And the further you want to take the party out of that radius, the more evidence I think you should be expected to provide.

Click to expand...

Yes it is presentation, but I guess not all of us are very good at it- when trying to explain an exploration or speculation. I think also some posters think their speculation is fact (for them) and the 'this is the way it is' comes across, and I go "Pfft to you", but do not answer, and if nobody does it sits there like a fact.

Well, I'm no historian, so there's probably an excellent set of criteria for this type of research; but that's my take on it.

Click to expand...

Nor me, but some idea of what is required, would be good. Which brings me to..

Debra said:

Problems emerge if someone presents speculation as fact, obscures facts, diverts attention from legitimate questions (for example, with flurries of mostly irrelevant information), or asserts the existence of definitive information but then does not produce it.

Click to expand...

So off I go and try and work it out- come to a dead end and blame myself for not having enough brains to see through the mud. Still I do not go back and say so., because I have believed that their credentials speak louder than my amateur status. So ethics are really important here it is true. I see no way around this except when someone like Debra is persistent. Maybe someone could say what is that criteria that Robert speaks of, actually is. Many times the proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes. Kwaw for instance has never steered me wrong, he appears to have a core but ventures out with explorations that are sound AND interesting. Maybe one thing is to come back at the poster with questions? Like, I would like to ask DianeOD what the heck is the thread about clocks all about- I have not asked her to explain the thread; so really that is my fault. It is this sort of thing that has me puzzled of late. It makes me feel stupid, let alone unlettered. ~Rosanne

Credentials

Enough of mine are available in the biography given with a talk I gave to the 'Symbiosis' group at the University of Newcastle. It used to be on the web. I haven't checked lately.

The question which was being answered in that talk - fairly roughly edited for the web-page, but space was an issue - was how ordinary people might have interpreted their deck, supposing that they weren't given any introduction to it by someone trained in the scholastic tradition.

So its not about what I believe the pack originally designed to represent, but how it might have evolved, or been personally understood by ordinary people.

As for the supposedly 'false' reference being alluded to. I gather this is more from Michael Hurst. It refers to Ltarot postings of the past.

The problem was that (a) I mentioned a medieval cleric and academic - pretty well known in medieval history, named Gerson. No-one seemed to have heard of him (b) I could not recall which secondary source i had used for the information about gerson's complaint re images bought and sold in the Churches. I recalled it as either the Oxford history of card-games, or Oxford dictionary of Christian biography, and said so. I do not usually cite secondary sources: my mistake. if Michael Hurst is correct, the secondary source was itself quoting Huizinga, but that was not suggested by anyone at the time. The thread ended with my promising to locate the relevant passage in the primary source - gerson - when i could. Finding it took time, since we do not have the Complete works of Gerson here. In the end, I had to ask help from an expert in Gerson's corpus. I returned to Ltaot and provided the reference.

At the same time, I passed on the information that I myself had evidently misinterpreted - taking Gerson's allusion to a specific 'foreign god' as meaning that all the images were of that type. (The opinion of the scholar concerned is that the images were most likely ones from the Romaunt de la Rose, which are being *likened* in their obscenity to the works of the 'god of filth' Baal Phegor).

Such problems occur in research. In my view they are regrettable. I had certainly misinterpreted, and said so.

This is when Mr. Hurst began his unbridled attack, calling into question my personal character, integrity and competence - both intellectual and practical.
I had hoped the matter would not be carried further, by him or his associates, and especially not into this forum.

Now - On the issue of a fifteenth-century invention of the tarot-style pack: I realise that this is Dummett's original (1980) view. I think he may have modified it since, because more recently he has published a work speaking of the 'games played with the tarot pack' where earlier he had spoken of 'the Game of tarot'. I may be mis-interpreting the inference of that change, of course.

It would be a lot easier for me if I could share that view, which has since been adhered to by many others.

Unfortunately, I cannot. Holding to that view requires one to ignore, mis-translate, discount or talk down a growing number of historical allusions, written, linguistic and iconographic - not least of which are these images in stone. If one has to choose between being denigrated, or being as true as possible to what one discovers in the historical material, or being silent, the last is perhaps the most desirable at a personal level.
Diane
PS
Rosanne, its very good to see you again.

Hi, Rosanne, et al.

Many of the best things to say have already been said, but isn't often the case? So I can only agree, comment, and add a personal footnote or two. I'll start with one of those, and a little history about popular books on Tarot history. Like Rosanne, O'Neill's Tarot Symbolism was a big factor in getting me hooked on historical Tarot studies. And it sets a great example -- perhaps not in its conclusions, but in the fact that it bothered to deal with historical evidence, the findings of playing-card historians. Bob also cited cultural history works like Burckhardt and Huizinga, and art-history works like Seznec and Wind, which are some of the books which folks should read at an early stage of their Tarot history studies.

When O'Neill published Tarot Symbolism in 1986, Moakley, Dummett's The Game of Tarot, and Kaplan vol.I had already come out, as had numerous books by people like Paul Huson and Alfred Douglas which put a modern spin on the old occult views. But old Bunny Bob put the two types of books together. Yes, he wanted to rationalize esoteric Tarot, like the latter group, but he also paid homage to the former group, with their focus on evidence and reason. Since then some popular books, like John Shephard's The Tarot Trumps: Cosmos in Miniature, and Timothy Betts' Tarot and the Millennium: The Story of Who's on the Cards and Why, have presented theories of interpretation and, to a lesser extent, Tarot history, without any of the old preconceptions about the occult, mysticism, and fortune-telling. Others, including recent popular books like Bob Place's The Tarot: History, Symbolism, and Divination, and Paul Huson's Mystical Origins of the Tarot, despite perpetuating a lot of esoteric folklore, nonetheless follow O'Neill's lead and work the gaps in Tarot history. But few today completely ignore the documented history. O'Neill took Tarot history mainstream.

When Robert talks about a "middle ground", I take it to mean documented facts about Tarot history (findings) and the consensus opinion of the best playing-card historians (conclusions) as to how those facts fit into a larger historical narrative. When he talks about a "safe radius" away from that middle ground, which is where most of us spend much of our time, I take it that he is talking about filling in the gaps and extending the middle ground a bit. We all tend to fill in the gaps rather differently, and extend it in different directions and to greater or lesser extent. Most of "us" tend to avoid extending it to "Atlantis or Robert Graves", and many of us would avoid extending it to include the Holy Blood, Holy Grail folklore as well.

Debra wrote: "Problems emerge if someone presents speculation as fact, obscures facts, diverts attention from legitimate questions (for example, with flurries of mostly irrelevant information), or asserts the existence of definitive information but then does not produce it."

LOL -- explaining the intended significance of such "flurries" of seemingly pointless references is basic. Without such explanation, all you have is incoherent babbling. Regarding documentation and support, which many people don't care about at all... well, as long as we're in the safe zone, that middle ground or pretty damned close to it, we're just agreeing with the best scholars who have studied the subject. No support or justification is needed. Those who want to *challenge* the current consensus have the burden of producing a better history, one that explains what the Dummett et al. history explains and improves on it in some way. As for folks like me, who are largely consumers of the mainstream historical narrative rather than producers of a new historical narrative, we have very little burden in terms of supporting our position. The center is a safe zone, and the "safe radius" means that at least one foot is still on firm factual ground, that middle ground. It is only the far-fetched conclusions, at the margins or beyond, which require lots of support and a comparative analysis with the current consensus. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support.

Rosanne wrote: "I think also some posters think their speculation is fact (for them) and the 'this is the way it is' comes across, and I go "Pfft to you", but do not answer, and if nobody does it sits there like a fact." LOL -- I write like that a LOT. I could apologize, but I can't repent. I do repeat a caveat from time to time, like Robert's "child, take what I say with a pinch of salt", reminding people that just because I say something with conviction don't make it so. But "Pfft to you" is a perfectly reasonable response to things lacking proper support and qualification. But if you ask, I'll certainly attempt to provide both.

Rosanne wrote: "Kwaw for instance has never steered me wrong, he appears to have a core but ventures out with explorations that are sound AND interesting." He also routinely 1) answers questions and 2) provides sources. Not a big deal among normal folk, perhaps, but a glaring contrast to those who pose as scholars from on high who can't be bothered to defend their pronouncements with explanations, examples, evidence, or logic, much less with a comparison between their new ideas and the invariably simpler and better supported middle ground.

Most of the time, I'm a consumer rather than a producer of Tarot history. As such, I routinely agree with the conclusions of playing-card historians -- how boring is that?! However, I am also a defender of that consensus opinion, (both in playing-card history and art history), which routinely leads to fireworks. Robert wrote that the location of the middle ground, "if challenged, must be confronted and bettered." As noted above, this is a crucial point in terms of rational discussion. If the consensus is wrong about something, show it. If they had an okay idea but you have a better one, show it.

For example, simply claiming that Dummett is a shabby researcher whose conclusions reflect his preconceptions rather than documented history, without citing a single example where his findings or conclusions are flawed, is pathetic, beyond sloppy and negligent, and in fact dishonest or profoundly biased. If you can't provide examples to quote and attack, given the many thousands of findings and conclusions Dummett has published on Tarot history in more than a quarter century, you should probably have the basic self-awareness to realize that you're full of shit, and have the intellectual integrity to STFU. If you can't quote what they wrote, don't attack them based on vague characterizations. LOL -- and, quoting people is fun!

In my own case, I sometimes disagree with the consensus. Who doesn't? However, when I reject a conclusion (such as Dummett's characterization of the Sicilian Tower as having a "harmless appearance" and the Ship being an arbitrary selection from the Minchiate) I explain in detail why I disagree, and I provide whatever supporting evidence drove me to that conclusion.

When I claim to have found an interesting source, either previously referenced or previously ignored, (such as my recent posts on the recently-deceased LTarot mailing list about Pinkerton's 1861 essay or Melton's 1620 Astrologaster), I explain what it is, with author, title, description, and usually some quoted passages, along with an explanation of why that seems valuable and where it, or a description of it, can be found, giving preference to online sources when available.

When I venture something novel in terms of iconography, i.e., my own interpretation of something, (like my reading of the generic meaning of the trump cycle, the meaning of the TdM cycle, the variations of certain cards in the Florentine decks, my view of Sola Busca, Boiardo, the E-Series model book, and so on), I offer definitions (what my interpretation means and what it doesn't mean, with examples), explanations (with comparisons and analogies), and the best and most specific sources and cognates in art and literature that I have found.

I don't consider any of that an undue burden on me. It is a necessary burden. The middle ground is firm ground in terms of empirical support and rational analysis. When venturing beyond it, you can either build your own support, or sink into the swamps of unsubstantiated fantasy.

That's my take on it. I LIKE presenting evidence and argument to support my ideas, because without that supporting evidence and argument they are mere figments, something from my personal world rather than from the world we share.