Mystical Origins of Tarot

Bernice said:

...dispite the historical inaccuracies in the early part

Click to expand...

I really enjoyed this book but am always curious as to how one finds out which bits are the 'inaccuracies'. I've read Place as well and lots here on Aeclectic and Decker's 'Art & Arcana'. I find the most frustraing thing about tarot history is not knowing what to take as fact and what is perhaps just an idea or theory. I think theories are great but sometimes authors don't make it clear if they are stating a fact or an opinion.

In saying all that, Mystical Origins is a great book and one I refer to regularly.

I really liked this book. His comparisons between card meanings from different sources makes the book valuable if that was the only thing it had.

Like the Robert Place book mentioned earlier, it is an excellent place to start for in dept tarot research.

I've just bought Paul Huson's Mystical Origins from Amazon. I got Robert Michael Place's book a couple of week ago and have been well and truly engrossed by it. I dodn't know much about the history of tarot but I've found this book to be wonderful in expanding my knowledge on this topic. Since I had Huson's book recommended as well, I thought I'd give that one a go too based on everyones reviews here. I don't think I'll be disappointed.

Sapienza: I really enjoyed this book but am always curious as to how one finds out which bits are the 'inaccuracies'. I've read Place as well and lots here on Aeclectic and Decker's 'Art & Arcana'. I find the most frustraing thing about tarot history is not knowing what to take as fact and what is perhaps just an idea or theory. I think theories are great but sometimes authors don't make it clear if they are stating a fact or an opinion.

In saying all that, Mystical Origins is a great book and one I refer to regularly.

Click to expand...

I think this is a very valid observation, especially for those of us who are really interested in the History of cards, but are not history 'scholars'. It is usually only when something is specifically addressed, with a clear explanation about why the date or documented fact is innacurate, that we can see for ourselves if the 'facts' are rock solid, or inferred from a short passage or sentence in some historical writings - which may indeed confirm a validity (or not.....).

To confound us further many early writings are not in english, and a direct translation may not (often not!) convey the original sense & meaning that would be obvious to people of those times and places. Garnering information to assess fact from theory certainly isn't easy for non-scholars. From time to time I have a binge-browse in the History archives here and have found snippets of gold-dust. My thanks go to those members who have contributed their knowledge and made it accessible here.

So, dispite any 'scholary inaccuracies', I also think this is a great book about how Tarot cards originated. And as was mentioned previously, the card-meanings section is a rich resource for diviners!


Bee

I'm not sure what people are describing here are actual "historical inaccuracies" or just things with which they disagree. The book has an extensive bibliography, and I personally have never found ANY book to be without error.

LeFanu, the Place is valuable because he explains extensively how the trumps relate to Christian Neo-Platonism -- whereas Huson's book touches on this subject but mostly relates the imagery to art, religious mystery plays and historical figures. Hence my recommendation of the two together as a more "complete" history of the cards.

I've had the book for a while and have read it through twice; Huson's research into medieval performing arts and iconography are fascinating. He recently had his own Tarot deck published, Dame Fortune's Wheel, and I just bought it. I'm going to be going over the book a third time w/ his cards in hand, and think it will be a great experience!

I've wondered the same thing about historical inaccuracies. Are they genuine inaccuracies or just assumed inaccuracies because Huson reaches different conclusions than the so-called authorities? New ideas are frequently rejected at first by the establishment. Huson does speculate but he's usually pretty good at pointing out what's speculation and what's not. Most of his ideas are backed up with some kind of evidence which may not a smoking gun in some cases, but at least makes sense.

RexMalaki said:

I really liked this book. His comparisons between card meanings from different sources makes the book valuable if that was the only thing it had.

Click to expand...

I completely agree! This is one of my favorite books! It is a fabulous book. And about the inaccuracies; I think we should all write to the Historical Accuracy Society and get an official certification on what is accurate and what is not.

Well, if it matters, that is...

Abrac said:

I've wondered the same thing about historical inaccuracies. Are they genuine inaccuracies or just assumed inaccuracies because Huson reaches different conclusions than the so-called authorities? New ideas are frequently rejected at first by the establishment. Huson does speculate but he's usually pretty good at pointing out what's speculation and what's not. Most of his ideas are backed up with some kind of evidence which may not a smoking gun in some cases, but at least makes sense.

Click to expand...

As with Dame Frances Yates, and any good historian, Huson is not afraid to say "We don't know". It's a pretty sound book, and I re-read the first part again last night to try to find where he is "inaccurate". Opinionated, yes, and speculative too, but he's always clear when he's being both. So I'm still not sure what the issues are with people who claim his work is not true to the facts we have.

Greg Stanton said:

As with Dame Frances Yates, and any good historian, Huson is not afraid to say "We don't know". It's a pretty sound book, and I re-read the first part again last night to try to find where he is "inaccurate". Opinionated, yes, and speculative too, but he's always clear when he's being both. So I'm still not sure what the issues are with people who claim his work is not true to the facts we have.

Click to expand...

And I completely agree with you as well.

I think most of the "inaccuracies" are simply things where others have decided that they like a different author's opinion or historical account more than Paul Hudson's. What is "truth" or "historical accuracy" other than what we have all collectively decided "that" is what happened? Nothing in any Tarot book, or any book for that matter, should be accepted without question.

This is a well-researched and very informative book, "inaccuracies" and all! (Although, like you, I didn't find any inaccuracies, but I didn't really look either.)