mikeh wrote:Robert has managed to post my favorite Fool cards, the d'Este and the Noblet. I can't let the opportunity go by to say something about them. I don't think the d'Este Fool is a court Fool, or buffone. These professional Fools were often very clever. Galeazzo Maria Sforza's buffone made enough money to have a wife and a sizable bank account, and he once traveled on his own to the duke's country residence when he had to go late for some reason (Lubkin, A Renaissance Court, p. 115, in Google Books). In contrast, the d'Este Fool is a simpleton; we would call him developmentally disabled, very disabled. He fell in that category of people who were considered not responsible for their actions (it included psychotics as well). There was a taboo against grown men letting little boys touch their penises, and that would have applied to buffone. But it didn't apply to the developmentally disabled.
Mike, a fascinating interesting article - you've presented some compelling ideas, none of which I can, or wish to argue against. It's just that, looking at the D'Este Fool, seeing the competence of the artist and trusting my eyes, I simply can't accept this statement:
In contrast, the d'Este Fool is a simpleton; we would call him developmentally disabled, very disabled.
Even without comparing him to the Visconti-Sforza and the Charles V1 Fools, his face (which is the main part of his body we'd expect to find it), shows no sign of developmental disablement. Yet it would have been so easy for the artist to indicate this - we only have to look at the other two Fools to know this to be true.
And surely we can discount this Fool being psychotic? He'd very likely look normal, but I don't think the children would be allowed anywhere near him if that were known to be the case.
I realize this is not helpful or constructive. Your explanations re. the taboos etc. are good ones, and the only alternative I have is my initial impression of the tableau, which I admit is not strong, and for which I have no corroborative research. It's just that after Marco's miraculous discovery of the white girdle and its significance on
The Moon thread (for which he deserves some sort of Tarot Medal), I'm determined to trust what I see rather than accepting or offering the opinions of Moakley et al.
Incidentally, I did wonder if the fact that all the figures (except the Fool, who's practically naked) in the D'Este Tarot are dressed in the same or similar rich fabric has any significance or bearing on the question of what kind of Fool this is. It does reinforce the feeling/impression that the scenes on the cards are personal to the D'Este court and exclusive of the outside world. Just a thought...
Added on the 24th: although to find Diogenes dressed in rich clothing on the Sun card seems somewhat ironic...
Pen