Lollio and Imperiali (1550 ca)

#1
Girolamo Zorli has published on www.tretre.it a complete transcription of two poems about tarot dating to 1550 ca: the Invective by Alberto Lollio and the Reply by Vincenzo Imperiali.

Imperiali provides an almost complete list of the trumps, providing a sketchy interpretation of the sequence. His premise is that God must be left out of the interpretation of the trumps because “naming him in a game is an insult”. Imperiali dedicates a relatively long description to the Devil, giving to the card the conventional Christian meaning, whereas Piscina interprets it as neutral “demons” making part of a Platonic cosmological scheme. On the other hand, Imperiali's interpretation of the Old Man is very similar to that provided by Piscina: the wisdom of old age is more powerful than fortune.
It is not clear to me if Imperiali interprets trump XV as the Sky, Hell or Lightning (going “ from the luminous sky down to the dark centre” of the earth).

An English translation of a few passages is available on Tarotpedia.

Marco

Re: Lollio and Imperiali (1550 ca)

#2
marco wrote: An English translation of a few passages is available on Tarotpedia.

Marco
Thank you Marco: I like the bit about the bit about the pope and emperor needing their women!

Then the Pope and the Emperor come, [V,III]
each with his woman at his side because [IV,II]
their hearts forbid to them to be without women.
One is called Sacred, the other one Saint,

The Popesse is there because the Pope like any other man cannot be without a woman:P

(Of course it was pretty common place for Popes to have mistresses and children. Screw allegory, he screwed women.)

I wonder with each of their women being 'at his side this means the order is pope, popesse, emperor, empress. Who is called Sacred and the other Saint? The two women? It is interesting how so many of these old poems treat the order in reverse, from top to bottom (which is how Gebelin/Mellet claimed the narrative should be read).
Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.
T. S. Eliot

Re: Lollio and Imperiali (1550 ca)

#3
SteveM wrote: The Popesse is their because the Pope like any other man cannot be without a woman:P
Yes, I agree it is rather funny :)
SteveM wrote: I wonder with each of their women being 'at his side this means the order is pope, popesse, emperor, empress. Who is called Sacred and the other Saint? The two women? It is interesting how so many of these old poems treat the order in reverse, from top to bottom (which is how Gebelin/Mellet claimed the narrative should be read).
According to Dummett (Il Mondo e l'Angelo), the standard B order has:
5 Papa
4 Papessa
3 Imperatore
2 Imperatrice

I guess the Emperor was Sacred because his Empire was the Sacred Roman Empire.
The Pope, here in Italy, still is "il Santo Padre".

Marco

Re: Lollio and Imperiali (1550 ca)

#4
marco wrote:
SteveM wrote: I wonder with each of their women being 'at his side this means the order is pope, popesse, emperor, empress. Who is called Sacred and the other Saint? The two women? It is interesting how so many of these old poems treat the order in reverse, from top to bottom (which is how Gebelin/Mellet claimed the narrative should be read).
According to Dummett (Il Mondo e l'Angelo), the standard B order has:
5 Papa
4 Papessa
3 Imperatore
2 Imperatrice
Yes, having looked now through the pdf you linked to its says in the notes:
n.77 Papa, Papessa, Imperatore e Imperatrice, rispettivamente trionfo 5,4,3,2.

I guess the Emperor was Sacred because his Empire was the Sacred Roman Empire.
The Pope, here in Italy, still is "il Santo Padre".
Of course, makes sense, the descriptive Sacred and Saint refer to the men then, not the women.
Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.
T. S. Eliot

Re: Lollio and Imperiali (1550 ca)

#7
marco wrote: I guess the Emperor was Sacred because his Empire was the Sacred Roman Empire.
The Pope, here in Italy, still is "il Santo Padre".
I think I missed that connection on first reading of the translation because in English we do not say Sacred Roman Empire or Saint Father. Sacro romano imperatore e il Santo Padre would be Holy Roman Emperor and Holy Father in English. Thus if the adjectives are related to the Emperor and Pope here the English would make better sense if both Sacro and Santo are translated as 'Holy'? But "one is called holy, and holy the other" does miss the distinction of the original (written alternatively as "one is called holy, and the other is holy" might imply a very different sense to the intent of the original, ie, "one is called holy, and the other is holy").

Does the second line say something about a song or singing (canto) i.e.,

Poi viene il Papa,con l’Imperatore,
Then comes the Pope, with the Emperor,

Et ciascun d’essi hà la sua donn’ à canto,
And each of them has his woman to sing, (do the women sing, or do the men sing to the woman, i.e., as in 'to woo' with poetry or serenade with song, or as in euphenism 'to love' as in song of solomon? She that with poetry is won, Is but a desk to write upon; And what men say of her they mean No more than on the thing they lean)

Che senza donne stare,* loro* non da il core.
For to be without women, is not in their heart. (lit, they do not give heart/core; they do not agree with in their heart; they do not give credence?)

Chiamato vien l’un Sacro,*e l’altro Santo,*
Called is the one Holy,* and the other Holy,*

pur vogliono buffoni,et giocolieri,*
yet they want clowns and jugglers,

Et pazzi in tutto,con risibil manto.
And the totally crazy with ludicrous attire.

SteveM
* star and lor in original.
* sacro and santo lit. sacred and saint, but Sacro romano imperatore e il Santo Padre = Holy roman emperor and holy father
* giocolari in original.
Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.
T. S. Eliot

Re: Lollio and Imperiali (1550 ca)

#8
Hello Steve,
I agree with your most of your observations. Thank you for making clear the problem with “sacro” and “santo”.
SteveM wrote: Does the second line say something about a song or singing (canto) i.e.,
….
Et ciascun d’essi hà la sua donn’ à canto,
In modern Italian, it would be “accanto”: “canto” meant “side”, or “corner” (as well as “song”), so “each of them has his woman at his side”.

Marco

Re: Lollio and Imperiali (1550 ca)

#9
marco wrote:Hello Steve,
I agree with your most of your observations. Thank you for making clear the problem with “sacro” and “santo”.
SteveM wrote: Does the second line say something about a song or singing (canto) i.e.,
….
Et ciascun d’essi hà la sua donn’ à canto,
In modern Italian, it would be “accanto”: “canto” meant “side”, or “corner” (as well as “song”), so “each of them has his woman at his side”.

Marco
Ah, thank you. One other thing, as I read it, he appears to place 'prudence' where one would expect the traitor/hanged man to be?
Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.
T. S. Eliot

Re: Lollio and Imperiali (1550 ca)

#10
SteveM wrote:
Ah, thank you. One other thing, as I read it, he appears to place 'prudence' where one would expect the traitor/hanged man to be?
Ah, no: I see he is saying both the prudent and the malicious are felled by death: all are as equal on its balance/scales: and as you note in your introduction, the traitor has been left out.
Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.
T. S. Eliot

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron