punchinella
I'm starting a new thread in fear & trepidation, after having pondered the idea for some time (& after having searched unsuccessfully for a preexisting thread). I would have posted my question under FAQs (beginners' quick q's about) if Rusty Neon had not specified that those questions be non-historical in nature.
The question is about how integral a part of the Marseilles deck minor cards (aces, courts & pips) actually are. Is there any evidence to suggest that the major arcana existed first & independently . . . or, in searching for origins/understanding of tarot, need one take it as a whole? At the moment I'm particularly curious about whether the Ace of Cups can be definitively viewed as part of the essential & original framework. My question, however, is general (not exclusive to the Ace of Cups).
If I had more historical literature available here, perhaps I would be able to answer the question myself. Alas, I do not.
Thanks for your consideration--
Punchinella
The question is about how integral a part of the Marseilles deck minor cards (aces, courts & pips) actually are. Is there any evidence to suggest that the major arcana existed first & independently . . . or, in searching for origins/understanding of tarot, need one take it as a whole? At the moment I'm particularly curious about whether the Ace of Cups can be definitively viewed as part of the essential & original framework. My question, however, is general (not exclusive to the Ace of Cups).
If I had more historical literature available here, perhaps I would be able to answer the question myself. Alas, I do not.
Thanks for your consideration--
Punchinella