Sophie
Oh, what a thread, what a thread!
Rosanne's opening post - and latterly Umbrae - have explained why, after an initial interest in tarot history, which led me to read far beyond the forum - I stopped posting here, long ago. I've not stopped reading here, and often do so, ~sometimes~ with pleasure. There are a number of regular posters here I enjoy reading, whatever their background.
My background should have made me an idea candidate for this section - on paper - but it hasn't. I studied history at Oxford - BA converted to MA (cost me £10
) - in fact in the same college as Gregory, only a bit later. My main papers were in Medieval history - especially Church history, Renaissance history in England (mainly from a cultural angle - I really had fun studying the masque!); and Ancient History (especially Greek classical period and late Roman Republic, for those interested, with texts in Greek and Latin). I am fluent in two European languages and competent in 2 more and read yet another; I read Latin, Greek and Hebrew. I did well. Not fabulously well, but well. I went on to study law and became a barrister, then I jacked it all in to practice International Humanitarian Law in the field - i.e. in war. Not much time for history then, except of the most relevant kind (e.g. why the Hutus and Tutsis hate each other's guts, etc.)
But I was a poor historian. Truly. See - when it comes to something like history (as opposed to the cut and thrust of people's lives as I dealt with in law and especially in war), I really don't give a toss whether something is fact or fiction. I enjoy reading about Renaissance court life - something I did widely at university - and I enjoy reading the speculations of neo-occultist historians à la Christine Payne-Trowler. I know, that places me beyond the pale. My tutors used to tear their hair out - those who had hair - because of that unfortunate trait of mine: you see, I like stories. I write stories. I listen to them. If you tell me a wholly fictional but gripping account of your mother's brave death battling lions in the Kalahari, I will love it, and if I find out the next day that it is a rather elastic exaggeration...I won't hate you for it. I'll still love the story. Never let a fact get in the way of a good story is more or less my motto . Although if a fact enhances the story - great! Many of the best stories in the world are factual.
So - I enjoy speculation. I enjoy reading that the Phoenicians created an alphabet that might have influenced the tarot trumps centuries later. It's fun, it makes my neurones dance and perhaps - at some level of Truth (as opposed to Fact, as yet unproven) - the Phoenicians did just that. What's time, after all? I sometimes think I am living at many different times - perhaps all times - and just happen to be awake and fully conscious at any one time (I know, that speculation is anathema to a real historian, let alone scientist!)
See what a crap historian I am?
Here is something I remember VIVIDLY from my time at Oxford. The way the supposedly qualified and even famous historians used to throw vitriol at each other when they disagreed - putting in doubt anything from research veracity to relevance to sanity. They used to sleep with each other's husbands and wives, too, but that's another matter entirely (or is it?). With the exception - I presume - of the adulterous angle, I am finding a lot of this kind of behaviour here on AT. Sometimes polite, sometimes angry and menacing. Now the latter seems to be happening between Michael, whose website I visit with pleasure, but who is, as he says himself, a middle-of-the-road man and unlike me, very attached to facts; and Diane, of whom I have read a few bits and bobs, but who seems on this forum to be posting in a rather random fashion. This doesn't bother me - I like random stories and speculations - though it is seems to be upsetting a lot of people. To a certain extent, the writer in me finds the clash of personalities and egoes interesting - albeit it can be tiresome.
But when Diane - or anyone else, for that matter - writes or implies in thread after thread "I'm qualified because of so and so and so and no-one else has said/written/thought what I have" and then posts random unsubstantiated material, or claims other people's ideas or research as their own, or claims research without producing it, I think, as Rosanne does - pff to you. I like a good story, I don't care who tells it, but I don't like to be taken for an idiot. I read about Ars Memoria before I even hit university, and when I first saw tarot cards, I immediately thought of it. I don't think that makes me a very original thinker.
Now to answer your opening question, Rosanne - as far as I am concerned - you can speculate to your heart's content. Your and Scion's Behenian Stars thread - which Kwaw and several other graced beautifully - was one of the highlights of my time at AT. It was speculative, but not so far-fetched as to be wholly impossible or extremely unlikely. It read like a detective story, and I have a weakness for those. Like Baba - I love Umberto Eco, but I admit I prefer his novels (now that's a surprise!) I like "supporting evidence" to the extent that it contributes to the story. But I've experienced first hand - both as history student and lawyer - that in many cases, someone clever and trained can do what they please with supporting evidence. I once argued for and against the existence of the Delian League, using the same evidence. My tutor, who had a sense of humour, enjoyed it and marked me up (obviously not a stunt to be repeated at exams). These days, I just prefer speculation and imagination, and where I am not required to (outside of work, that is), I can't be bothered to spend hours chasing evidence. I can fully enjoy and entertain several versions of tarot history at the same time, although no-one is ever going to convince me that the puritanical Cathar "Perfects" - whom I studied quite closely at one time - invented the TdM (to me, it would be a bit like saying the Vatican financed research into the Pill).
I've rambled a fair bit and now I'm going to return to my lurker status in this part of AT - and maybe join Umbrae in that bar, we can swap stories and toss a few matchsticks to predict who is going to win this round
Rosanne's opening post - and latterly Umbrae - have explained why, after an initial interest in tarot history, which led me to read far beyond the forum - I stopped posting here, long ago. I've not stopped reading here, and often do so, ~sometimes~ with pleasure. There are a number of regular posters here I enjoy reading, whatever their background.
My background should have made me an idea candidate for this section - on paper - but it hasn't. I studied history at Oxford - BA converted to MA (cost me £10
) - in fact in the same college as Gregory, only a bit later. My main papers were in Medieval history - especially Church history, Renaissance history in England (mainly from a cultural angle - I really had fun studying the masque!); and Ancient History (especially Greek classical period and late Roman Republic, for those interested, with texts in Greek and Latin). I am fluent in two European languages and competent in 2 more and read yet another; I read Latin, Greek and Hebrew. I did well. Not fabulously well, but well. I went on to study law and became a barrister, then I jacked it all in to practice International Humanitarian Law in the field - i.e. in war. Not much time for history then, except of the most relevant kind (e.g. why the Hutus and Tutsis hate each other's guts, etc.)But I was a poor historian. Truly. See - when it comes to something like history (as opposed to the cut and thrust of people's lives as I dealt with in law and especially in war), I really don't give a toss whether something is fact or fiction. I enjoy reading about Renaissance court life - something I did widely at university - and I enjoy reading the speculations of neo-occultist historians à la Christine Payne-Trowler. I know, that places me beyond the pale
. My tutors used to tear their hair out - those who had hair - because of that unfortunate trait of mine: you see, I like stories. I write stories. I listen to them. If you tell me a wholly fictional but gripping account of your mother's brave death battling lions in the Kalahari, I will love it, and if I find out the next day that it is a rather elastic exaggeration...I won't hate you for it. I'll still love the story. Never let a fact get in the way of a good story is more or less my motto . Although if a fact enhances the story - great! Many of the best stories in the world are factual. So - I enjoy speculation. I enjoy reading that the Phoenicians created an alphabet that might have influenced the tarot trumps centuries later. It's fun, it makes my neurones dance and perhaps - at some level of Truth (as opposed to Fact, as yet unproven) - the Phoenicians did just that. What's time, after all? I sometimes think I am living at many different times - perhaps all times - and just happen to be awake and fully conscious at any one time (I know, that speculation is anathema to a real historian, let alone scientist!)
See what a crap historian I am?
Here is something I remember VIVIDLY from my time at Oxford. The way the supposedly qualified and even famous historians used to throw vitriol at each other when they disagreed - putting in doubt anything from research veracity to relevance to sanity. They used to sleep with each other's husbands and wives, too, but that's another matter entirely (or is it?). With the exception - I presume - of the adulterous angle, I am finding a lot of this kind of behaviour here on AT. Sometimes polite, sometimes angry and menacing. Now the latter seems to be happening between Michael, whose website I visit with pleasure, but who is, as he says himself, a middle-of-the-road man and unlike me, very attached to facts; and Diane, of whom I have read a few bits and bobs, but who seems on this forum to be posting in a rather random fashion. This doesn't bother me - I like random stories and speculations - though it is seems to be upsetting a lot of people. To a certain extent, the writer in me finds the clash of personalities and egoes interesting - albeit it can be tiresome.
But when Diane - or anyone else, for that matter - writes or implies in thread after thread "I'm qualified because of so and so and so and no-one else has said/written/thought what I have" and then posts random unsubstantiated material, or claims other people's ideas or research as their own, or claims research without producing it, I think, as Rosanne does - pff to you. I like a good story, I don't care who tells it, but I don't like to be taken for an idiot. I read about Ars Memoria before I even hit university, and when I first saw tarot cards, I immediately thought of it. I don't think that makes me a very original thinker.
Now to answer your opening question, Rosanne - as far as I am concerned - you can speculate to your heart's content. Your and Scion's Behenian Stars thread - which Kwaw and several other graced beautifully - was one of the highlights of my time at AT. It was speculative, but not so far-fetched as to be wholly impossible or extremely unlikely. It read like a detective story, and I have a weakness for those. Like Baba - I love Umberto Eco, but I admit I prefer his novels
(now that's a surprise!) I like "supporting evidence" to the extent that it contributes to the story. But I've experienced first hand - both as history student and lawyer - that in many cases, someone clever and trained can do what they please with supporting evidence. I once argued for and against the existence of the Delian League, using the same evidence. My tutor, who had a sense of humour, enjoyed it and marked me up (obviously not a stunt to be repeated at exams). These days, I just prefer speculation and imagination, and where I am not required to (outside of work, that is), I can't be bothered to spend hours chasing evidence. I can fully enjoy and entertain several versions of tarot history at the same time, although no-one is ever going to convince me that the puritanical Cathar "Perfects" - whom I studied quite closely at one time - invented the TdM (to me, it would be a bit like saying the Vatican financed research into the Pill). I've rambled a fair bit and now I'm going to return to my lurker status in this part of AT - and maybe join Umbrae in that bar, we can swap stories and toss a few matchsticks to predict who is going to win this round
) was about Track usage in Eastern Europe with emphasis on Bohemia. That question was answered at length and with patience by Baba.... and then elaborated upon by Ross and Kwaw and JMD and Huck. All of these people would remain vital parts of my Tarot education. At the time I was doing research for a project and the intelligence of this subforum and desire to ask a History question was what prompted me to join.