originality of minor cards--?

[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

[jmd]

Your question has various strands all within it... each of which are important and could be wonderfully discussed in various ways.

Moderation note:
...and by all means, please never feel trepidation for posting a question!

...and feel free to post in existing threads - even if someone else has requested this not be done. The threads are Aeclectic's - and open to everyone, not the thread starter's. If the question or direction are innapropriate in the thread, then it becomes my difficult assessment to separate strains out.

The first part of the question may be looked at outside of a specifically Marseille context. There is a fair amount of evidence that prior to the first Tarot decks, a game of cards existed in Mamluk lands which had four suits and courts quite consistent with what later developed into the Tarot's minor arcana.

It seems that it was later that a 'fifth suit', the Atouts/Trumps/Major Arcana, was possibly added from a variety of imagery already and independently existent within Christian Europe (notably in paintings, carvings, and illuminated manuscripts).

So the Ace of Cups, as well as all the other pips, did indeed exist from quite early days - and some would argue prior to the Atouts/Major Arcana. Indeed, as a deck of cards, there is no evidence (of which I am aware) that the Atouts existed without the pips, but there is evidence for it being the other way around.

I hope, as a first step, this helps a little...

[punchinella]

Oh that's funny isn't it, I had it backwards

The implication is the same though (as it would be if the minors had come later) . . . If one chooses to understand tarot (or the major arcana) as a cohesive system, designed to express something precise, the minor cards do not necessarily have to be taken into consideration.

Originally posted by jmd
It seems that it was later that a 'fifth suit', the Atouts/Trumps/Major Arcana, was possibly added from a variety of imagery already and independently existent within Christian Europe (notably in paintings, carvings, and illuminated manuscripts).

The real question, then, is who selected & arranged these images (& why). --Did they preexist as an ordered group, or was selection random & haphazard (for gaming purposes only)?

(I am, of course, aware that this question is hopelessly broad, & hacked-over already many times, by many people )

[le pendu]

Hi punchinella,

That is THE question as far as I'm concerned. Why these images? Why 22? Why this order?

As far as I know, no one has come up with a good solution.

Did the 22 images appear as a combined group before the tarot? Wouldn't it be wonderful to find an illuminated manuscript, or a section of a church, or some illustrations to a ancient text that accounted for all of the images!!!

Please make sure you read through the old posts in this section. There are suggestions and thoughts here and there which address this question.

Several members of AE also work on the website called Trionfi at http://www.trionfi.com/ which explores the history of tarot and offers some theories.

I suggested an idea in this post which looks at the combination of Giotto's virtues and vices with Petrarch's Triumphs: http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread...ghlight=giotto

Also note the interesting theory by AE member Mark Filipas, A Lexicon Theory of Tarot Origin, at:
http://www.spiritone.com/~filipas/Ma.../allusion.html

happy hunting!

robert

[punchinella]

Thanks for the links rm, the Mark Filipas site has left me speechless--

Your thread is more difficult since the references are (sadly, to me) unknown . . . digesting it will take a bit more time.

I have another question though, regarding the original game to which trumps were later added: did it involve court cards as well? (Do we know precisely how many cards were in that deck?)

In a month or two, I do plan to purchase Stuart Kaplan's encyclopedias . . . at which point I may be able to stop asking basic questions here . . .

[le pendu]

Hi punchinella,

The most likely origin for European playing cards are the Mamluk playing cards.

You can see them here:
http://www.wopc.co.uk/mamluk/index.html

But make sure you read this:
http://l-pollett.tripod.com/cards64.htm

Andy's Playing Cards site is one of the best sites for learning the history of Tarot. Make sure you read through his site, it will give you a wonderful background on the development of Tarot and what we do and don't know.

The Mamluk cards DID have court cards, The King, The Viceroy and The Second Viceroy. The cards were identified by the name, but no image, as images were forbidden by Islamic law. Not sure about the exact history here... but from these, the Europeans created The King, The Knight, and the Knave. Another transformation substituted the Queen. So early European Cards had the same 52 card decks that we have today in our playing cards, Ace through Ten and three court cards.

What is unusual about the Tarot is the combination of court cards to make four for each suit. Another "mystery" is to be found in the Cary-Yale tarot deck, which is certainly "not standard". This deck, one of the earliest extant decks (if not THE earliest), has 6 court cards for each suit, as well as a slightly different set of trumphs! Read more about it here:
http://l-pollett.tripod.com/cards31.htm

Hope this helps,
robert

[full deck]

Originally posted by robertmealing
. . . I suggested an idea in this post which looks at the combination of Giotto's virtues and vices with Petrarch's Triumphs: http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread...ghlight=giotto

Yes, Robert, I'm still doing reading about this for my notes on the imagery in the minchiate and am also attempting to track the various pictorial themes as they occur in art. It's much work and a bit like being in college again but I'm learning more all the time. What I have found so far seems to point more in the same direction that you have suggested as well.

I wish I knew a serious art historian I could converse with but . . . time and business puts me elsewhere.

[Cerulean]

http://www.trigono.com/tarots/storia_dei_tarocchi.htm

It provides a sketchy, through nice summary of ideas.

Others, like myself, enjoy the combination of literature and art concepts that probably contributed to tarocchi structure and history.

In one of the panels, you'll see a short triumph or 22 allegorical poem assigned to identities of court ladies in Ferarra. Guesses from 1465 to even later periods up to 1494 show other poets, especially one from Ferarra, making up full 78 poem allegories with tarocchi-like courts, minors and majors in the structure.

In Ferarra, a well-known example was Count Matteo Maria Boiardo, who was then grown and beginning poetic tributes to his patrons. He could have written the poem from 1465-1471 for recognition to Duke Borso's many festivities or a later period for the even more active half-brother Ercole or his wife and children. Boiardo would have been a tutor-like figure within the family circle, who knew Ercole when young.

At least, there's a written record of associating the minors, majors and courts in allegory, which is one step closer to divining
meaning from symbolic concepts to human destiny.

These are ideas and hopefully they suggest some relevance to people's questions:

http://www.geocities.com/autorbis/boiardo-bio.html

Regards,

Cerulean Mari

[Fulgour]

One way to approach this subject is on a personal level.
You can hold the deck in your hands, just like many others
have for perhaps a thousand years, certainly seven hundred.
This is real evidence, and it is as much your choice as to
their origins, the who-what-when-where-why-how as it is
anyone's. Everywhere else you look for these answers,
all you will find is someone's opinion. You get to decide.

Remember that in 1000 AD there were 36,000,000 Europeans.
In the year 1600, that number had almost tripled. These people
lived and died with all the passion and creative energy known
still by ourselves. Tarot is part of our legacy, each one of us.

[Huck]

Originally posted by Fulgour
Remember that in 1000 AD there were 36,000,000 Europeans.
In the year 1600, that number had almost tripled. These people
lived and died with all the passion and creative energy known
still by ourselves. Tarot is part of our legacy, each one of us.

I doubt the validity of this number.
In 11th century we had an European overpopulation (according to the then given possibilities to produce food etc.., which resulted in the crusades. With 36.000.000 Milion people that wouldn't have been given. Then there is a heavy population crash with 1348- 1350 (black death). The plagues endured in the next centuries. There was strong increase in 16th century, true.

But 36.000.000 in 1000 is too small. Or somebody only counted "West-Europe" or something like this.