Frances Yates and the Hermetic Tradition reviewed
By Psyche | March 15, 2010 | Print This Post | E-mail This Post | 4 Comments
Though I had of course heard of Frances Yates before, I didn’t know much about her, having only read Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition
Published by Ibis Press, Jones’ Frances Yates and the Hermetic Tradition is the first full-length biography to be written about Yates, and it’s a fascinating read.
@djninjastar also pointed me in the direction of this interview with Jones about the book on the Occult Sentinel podcast.
Though allusions to her not being a properly trained historian are frequent, not being any kind of historian myself I’m still not clear on what the distinction is. Help with that?
Either way, I’d now like to read the rest of her works, The Art of Memory especially, as it’s been called one of the most influential books of the twentieth century.
Check out my review, and let me know if you’ve read Yates, and what your thoughts were about her work.
Psyche is the editor of Plutonica.net and the curator for the occult resource SpiralNature.com, Psyche also operates a tarot consultation business, Psyche Tarot. She has been published in The Cauldron, Konton, Tarot World Magazine, among other magazines, and her essay “Strategic Magick” appeared in Manifesting Prosperity (Megalithica, 2008).
Psyche's website is http://www.plutonica.net.
Save & Share: Del.icio.us Digg Facebook Stumble it! Tweet
She’s critiqued as a historian because she didn’t really use the tools of historical analysis. You might say she was biased in her conclusions and how she came to them.
Nothing too serious, IMO. She was a better historian than many – even if she was prone to interpolations (who isn’t?).
I’m not familiar with what the tools of historical analysis might be, or how bias influenced her, specifically. I don’t get the impression she was a magician herself, and while she seemed prone to speculation, she called it such, opening new lines of inquiry.
Either way, I’m certainly looking forward to reading more of her work.
Here’s a general overview of common modes of historical analysis. As you explore Yates’ oeuvre, you’ll note that she didn’t exactly bother with a robust historical analysis, and that’s where she draws the most incisive critiques from historians.
That isn’t to say I think her not worth reading. Quite the opposite, in fact. But she’s one that I think should be read critically, and in the company of other scholars.
Excellent! Thanks for the link.
I strive to read critically, but it can be difficult in subjects where I’m lacking a baseline. (In which case I tend to view new things as “interesting” rather than The Truth, as one might expect.)
Yates did have style, the same can’t be said for many of the other historical works I’ve been reading.