Teheuti
Historical research is not a democracy determined by popular vote, in which hype and folklore are time-honored methods for getting to the result. As faulty as it is, science and history are among the last bastions of Platonic ideals in which a council of educated wise men and women determine the course based on methodologies involving clear reasoning and, a later development, analysis of evidence. However, the wisdom of the populace does serve to direct the gaze of science in places it was too blind and circumscribed to look. A groundswell of people who see intelligence and emotion in animals helps turn science from inhumane experiments into studying animal communication, which gives us clues how to communicate with the autistic and how to create artificial intelligence machines (which in turn needs the lore of fiction-writers to remind us of consequences).
Personally, I find the debates stimulating and they often lead me in interesting directions. I've recently been involved in a personal discussion with Christine Payne-Towler on her theory that an esoteric tarot can be traced back to Jacob Boehme, if not earlier. While I can't say that either of us convinced the other of our own perspectives, I did learn quite a bit about the 'Kabbalah' of Boehme (very rudimentary and confused),and I got a much better look at the 'stream' of gnostic esotericism that developed via Agrippa, Paracelsus, Postel, Boehme, Swedenborg, Pasquale, Saint-Martin and many others — major influences on the tarot of Eliphas Lévi, Oswald Wirth and Papus. One of the problems is that we don't have a forum for discussing this esoteric stream (with its many tributaries, bogs and byways). Christine is one of the few English-language tarotists who is truly interested in it.
But, when someone pushes us to respond to one of these 'fringe' areas, we get some great research (like the material on the Frankenberg/Postel Key—thank you, Michael), which educates us a little more on the mindset that framed assumptions about what tarot is.
Sure, we can get stuck in discounting that there was an esoteric tarot before de Gébelin (as historically valuable as that may be to do), but we rarely examine how these Ideas infused the tarot that we know today—especially the Marseille-style decks. A discussion is further confused by those who are only informed by the popularizing New Thought movement that came to dominate American tarot and has since spread around the world.
It is unfortunate that we descend into name-calling, but I respect those who are willing to put their 'wild' theories up for critical evaluation. We all benefit when sharply-honed minds and clear methodologies are focused on what possibilities do exist.
Last year there was a discussion of how much was Sigismundo Malatesta involved with the spread of the Neoplatonic ideas of Gemistus Pletho (did he even meet Pletho?) as his 'Pagan Temple' of Neoplatonic motifs clearly shows. And this year we discover (thank you, Ross, for the report) that a deck of Triumphs was ordered for him in 1440—one of the earliest mentions of the cards and the first that hints of tarot production in Florence and possibly Bologna. Not only that, but Malatesta's first two wives were from the d'Este and Sforza families who we know were playing Tarocchi. Perhaps by following some of Malatesta's visual motifs and interests we might understand the tarot allegories a little more?
I think we could all benefit from realizing that most of tarot lore are popularizations of the more serious stream of esoteric ideas that have always been part of Western culture. And, that the history of these ideas is what makes up the esoteric tarot and influences beliefs about it.
There are no esoteric secrets! Or, I should say that the so-called secret knowledge is easily available—although clothed in arcane languages and the styles of time, place and intention—which can make them appear more mysterious than they are. The secret wisdom (another thing entirely) comes from applying this knowledge. It is 'secret' because the experience can only be described in metaphor. It stands outside of factual knowledge and its methodologies.
Historical Research is a discipline that deals with only a limited part of human experience. It examines facts by using very specific methodologies. One HAS to use both facts and methodologies for it to be historical research.
Personally, I find the debates stimulating and they often lead me in interesting directions. I've recently been involved in a personal discussion with Christine Payne-Towler on her theory that an esoteric tarot can be traced back to Jacob Boehme, if not earlier. While I can't say that either of us convinced the other of our own perspectives, I did learn quite a bit about the 'Kabbalah' of Boehme (very rudimentary and confused),and I got a much better look at the 'stream' of gnostic esotericism that developed via Agrippa, Paracelsus, Postel, Boehme, Swedenborg, Pasquale, Saint-Martin and many others — major influences on the tarot of Eliphas Lévi, Oswald Wirth and Papus. One of the problems is that we don't have a forum for discussing this esoteric stream (with its many tributaries, bogs and byways). Christine is one of the few English-language tarotists who is truly interested in it.
But, when someone pushes us to respond to one of these 'fringe' areas, we get some great research (like the material on the Frankenberg/Postel Key—thank you, Michael), which educates us a little more on the mindset that framed assumptions about what tarot is.
Sure, we can get stuck in discounting that there was an esoteric tarot before de Gébelin (as historically valuable as that may be to do), but we rarely examine how these Ideas infused the tarot that we know today—especially the Marseille-style decks. A discussion is further confused by those who are only informed by the popularizing New Thought movement that came to dominate American tarot and has since spread around the world.
It is unfortunate that we descend into name-calling, but I respect those who are willing to put their 'wild' theories up for critical evaluation. We all benefit when sharply-honed minds and clear methodologies are focused on what possibilities do exist.
Last year there was a discussion of how much was Sigismundo Malatesta involved with the spread of the Neoplatonic ideas of Gemistus Pletho (did he even meet Pletho?) as his 'Pagan Temple' of Neoplatonic motifs clearly shows. And this year we discover (thank you, Ross, for the report) that a deck of Triumphs was ordered for him in 1440—one of the earliest mentions of the cards and the first that hints of tarot production in Florence and possibly Bologna. Not only that, but Malatesta's first two wives were from the d'Este and Sforza families who we know were playing Tarocchi. Perhaps by following some of Malatesta's visual motifs and interests we might understand the tarot allegories a little more?
I think we could all benefit from realizing that most of tarot lore are popularizations of the more serious stream of esoteric ideas that have always been part of Western culture. And, that the history of these ideas is what makes up the esoteric tarot and influences beliefs about it.
There are no esoteric secrets! Or, I should say that the so-called secret knowledge is easily available—although clothed in arcane languages and the styles of time, place and intention—which can make them appear more mysterious than they are. The secret wisdom (another thing entirely) comes from applying this knowledge. It is 'secret' because the experience can only be described in metaphor. It stands outside of factual knowledge and its methodologies.
Historical Research is a discipline that deals with only a limited part of human experience. It examines facts by using very specific methodologies. One HAS to use both facts and methodologies for it to be historical research.