Re: Panegyric of Bruzio Visconti by Bartolomeo da Bologn

#81
The plausible relation between Petrarca's Trionfi poem (as illuminated manuscripts) and the Trionfi card genre is given by the fact, that it seems probable, that both appear at the same time, together with the fashion of Cassone, which were decorated with Trionfi poem motifs.
This observation is confirmed by the condition, that at least some of the Trionfi poem motifs also appear as really existent old Trionfi cards.

I don't think, that high-intellectual interpretations of single card details - as for instance 2 flying horses - change that.

Naturally the Sforza used the personal card deck also to manifest their rulership. But likely it wasn't the only one idea in the deck composition.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Panegyric of Bruzio Visconti by Bartolomeo da Bologn

#82
Just a couple of brief additions. First, it is not relevant whether the CY Chariot card has anything to do with Plato. It might (I have made a weak argument to that effect), but what is important is that it relates to the Petrarchan theme of Pudicitia, of which in that instance, assuming it is in a marriage deck, the most important aspect is the bride's chastity. The PMB's is more general, closer to honor and virtue, as is the CVI's and similar, and in that regard Plato is much more relevant, first for the sex change (his lovers, at least, are male, and was permissible to in the early Renaissance to depict one lover as explicitly male) and second for the wings on the horses: if a woman, it is the archetype, if a man it is someone living and experiencing the archetype. That, too, is in Petrarch.

The second thing I want to add has to do with the CY Love card. Yhe word "amor" seems to be written on the tent. That is a fairly explicit link to Love. Most of the lettering has come off. Only the "m" is still visible (http://www.metmuseum.org/-/media/Images ... D49AC07C00). In Cicognara's drawing of the card, published in 1831, it is very clear. I see no reason to assume that he just made it up, unless you can find other made up details on the card. It is on p. 89 of Kaplan vol. 1. I cannot find a scan of it.

Re: Panegyric of Bruzio Visconti by Bartolomeo da Bologn

#83
Huck wrote:I don't think, that high-intellectual interpretations of single card details - as for instance 2 flying horses - change that. .
LMAO. I'm not making any arcane/"intellectual" arguments, I'm simply asking you to find a single attribute of Chastity in any Chariot beyond the CY. Even your counter-argument evidence of the Issy chariot clearly supports the reading of any of these cards as RULERSHIP - via a consort or the male ruler himself (and the CY Empress shares the Chariot's key attribute, but with an Imperial eagle, connecting the Milanese chariot's shield as an imperial fief with its own imprese, showing that the shield need not even be related to Chastity, although I would argue for polyvalence here: both the Empress and bride are virtuous beyond repute - chaste - but one ultimately derives her 'bon droyt' power from the other).

Petrarch productions follow the introduction of the ur-trionfi. The cards made the concept of trionfi fashionable. Petrarch triumphs subsequently blossomed, and a reason it did so was because it was easier to depict that much smaller number of subjects (6) in larger media, such as cassoni etc. Petrarch's trionfi are clearly a parallel phenomenon and as such there is no reason why an artist would depict a Petrarchan trionfo one way in every single other medium and yet a different way on card stock. The arguments for tarot as an expansion of Petrarch are convoluted in the extreme, without a single rationale as to why this was done other than the nominal one - there are two things named trionfi, so they must be the same. :-bd

Re: Panegyric of Bruzio Visconti by Bartolomeo da Bologn

#84
Phaeded wrote:
Huck wrote:I don't think, that high-intellectual interpretations of single card details - as for instance 2 flying horses - change that. .
LMAO. I'm not making any arcane/"intellectual" arguments, I'm simply asking you to find a single attribute of Chastity in any Chariot beyond the CY. Even your counter-argument evidence of the Issy chariot clearly supports the reading of any of these cards as RULERSHIP - via a consort or the male ruler himself (and the CY Empress shares the Chariot's key attribute, but with an Imperial eagle, connecting the Milanese chariot's shield as an imperial fief with its own imprese, showing that the shield need not even be related to Chastity, although I would argue for polyvalence here: both the Empress and bride are virtuous beyond repute - chaste - but one ultimately derives her 'bon droyt' power from the other).

Petrarch productions follow the introduction of the ur-trionfi. The cards made the concept of trionfi fashionable. Petrarch triumphs subsequently blossomed, and a reason it did so was because it was easier to depict that much smaller number of subjects (6) in larger media, such as cassoni etc. Petrarch's trionfi are clearly a parallel phenomenon and as such there is no reason why an artist would depict a Petrarchan trionfo one way in every single other medium and yet a different way on card stock. The arguments for tarot as an expansion of Petrarch are convoluted in the extreme, without a single rationale as to why this was done other than the nominal one - there are two things named trionfi, so they must be the same. :-bd
Hm. I remember, that I gave already my arguments for a chariot with a female driver.

I don't assume, that every deck called "Trionfi deck" in documents referred to Petrarca's Trionfi poem and his figures, but I think that the major line of development (that, what led to Tarot and its standard motifs later) was related, at least in its beginning.
Naturally it's possible, that decks with triumphal theme (military victory, peace contract, wedding) were older than deck's with Petrarca figures.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

cron