Barleywine
Thanks for the mention of Skinner's book. I have a few of his but not that one.
As far as approaching correspondences as a novice, I would start with "occult number theory" (not numerology of the "your lucky number" variety) by checking out Pythagoras, Iamblichus and others, even Agrippa (but he tended to wrap religion around his ideas, probably as camouflage). If you really want to "go deep" with it (isomorphs and such), Joseph Maxwell will take you there. Every deck partakes of number, so every deck is approachable in this way.
Second in my book would be the classical elements, which we all know already as "suits," but it can be extended to trump cards as well. This also can be applied fairly uniformly to most decks. You could go all the way back to Empedocles to find the root of the concept.
Astrological correspondences are probably best attacked from the Golden Dawn perspective since they had the most fully-realized (although still imperfect as I see it) conceptual model. I find their use of the Chaldean decans to be especially valuable. Corrine Kenner's Tarot and Astrology adheres closely to the GD model and is easy to assimilate (although more convincing in its astrology than its tarot aspects).
The Tree of Life stuff is worthwhile from a more abstract angle, and is an entire study on its own. Robert Wang's book The Qabalistic Tarot is a good starting point, although I understand Lon Milo DuQuette's more recent books are good as well. (I only have his Thoth guide.) I sometimes find inspiration in the names of the Hebrew letters and their connection with the Major Arcana, but it's not 100%.
Color symbolism at a basic level has occasional usefulness, but not all decks apply any kind of coherent systematic approach to it. Red as Fire, Blue as Water, Yellow as Air and Green as Earth (although I like some "brown-ness" to it) are fairly common and follow the elemental outline for the most part. The Golden Dawn had an elaborate methodology for this as well (King Scale, Queen Scale, etc.), but it hasn't made a huge impression on me for the purposes of reading the cards; basic seems best in that sense.
As far as approaching correspondences as a novice, I would start with "occult number theory" (not numerology of the "your lucky number" variety) by checking out Pythagoras, Iamblichus and others, even Agrippa (but he tended to wrap religion around his ideas, probably as camouflage). If you really want to "go deep" with it (isomorphs and such), Joseph Maxwell will take you there. Every deck partakes of number, so every deck is approachable in this way.
Second in my book would be the classical elements, which we all know already as "suits," but it can be extended to trump cards as well. This also can be applied fairly uniformly to most decks. You could go all the way back to Empedocles to find the root of the concept.
Astrological correspondences are probably best attacked from the Golden Dawn perspective since they had the most fully-realized (although still imperfect as I see it) conceptual model. I find their use of the Chaldean decans to be especially valuable. Corrine Kenner's Tarot and Astrology adheres closely to the GD model and is easy to assimilate (although more convincing in its astrology than its tarot aspects).
The Tree of Life stuff is worthwhile from a more abstract angle, and is an entire study on its own. Robert Wang's book The Qabalistic Tarot is a good starting point, although I understand Lon Milo DuQuette's more recent books are good as well. (I only have his Thoth guide.) I sometimes find inspiration in the names of the Hebrew letters and their connection with the Major Arcana, but it's not 100%.
Color symbolism at a basic level has occasional usefulness, but not all decks apply any kind of coherent systematic approach to it. Red as Fire, Blue as Water, Yellow as Air and Green as Earth (although I like some "brown-ness" to it) are fairly common and follow the elemental outline for the most part. The Golden Dawn had an elaborate methodology for this as well (King Scale, Queen Scale, etc.), but it hasn't made a huge impression on me for the purposes of reading the cards; basic seems best in that sense.