Re: two emperors in the wheel

21
Very interesting posts. Alberti seems like a really seminal figure for the tarot. In his theories of architecture and perspective, he was in part a follower of Pythagoras, for which there is a substantial literature, some of it on the Internet. Hence perhaps the even 20 in the Philodoxus. If he may have done the illustrations for the Hypnerotomachia, he may also have had something to do with the Sola-Busca pips, which seem to me Neopythagorean, and the underlying number-symbolism of the trump sequence, which I hadn't dared to speculate might go as far back as the 1450s and 1460s.

As to why the figure on the ground in the Brera might be a fallen emperor, one possibility is that this card is part of an Imperator deck. I wish I knew more about the special cards in those decks.

Re: two emperors in the wheel

23
Even more interesting! Perhaps I should have said "at least the illustrations." I was going by Wikpedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Batti ... :[quote]He has been credited with being the author, or alternatively the designer of the important woodcut illustrations, of the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, a strange fantasy novel (Liane Lefaivre, Leon Battista Alberti's Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1997). There is a good deal of debate about this attribution, however the attribution to Alberti of the illustrations appears to be gaining wide acceptance.[citation needed][/quote]

I see that on p. 134 of the book you refer to, she does attribute authorship to Alberti. But I can't find her argument for that position. Perhaps it isn't in the Google Books selection. I'd like to know more. I will try to get Lefaivre's book.

Re: two emperors in the wheel

24
Alberti is NOT the most suspected author. But it's occasionally suspected. The usual author is called Francesco Colonna, a Venetian monk ... which seems to be concluded by an "acrostico dei 38 capitoli" "Poliam Frater Franciscus Columna peramavit" (naturally with 38 letters) ... however, there is a debate, that this author Francesco Colonna was Francesco Colonna, signore of Palestrina, as the text contains details known and shown in Palestrina. But there seem to be other details, which give reason to place the authorship to 1467 and to Rome, which seems to be too early for this Francesco Colonna (14 years old then).
1467 is one year before 1468, when pope Paul struck against the accademia di Roma, enough reason for Alberti not to publish the text or to make known that he just had written a new wonderful work.

Alberti had hidden his authorship of "Philodoxus"
Alberti distributed the "Momus" only in small circles.
What would he have done with the "Hypnerotomachia Poliphili" ... well, he also would have distributed it in small circles. Anyway, he died 1472, and some parts are suggested to have been edited later.

Rome at this time was full of "sodomy" ... and the accademia Romana was attacked in 1468 with this argument. It seems plausible to assume some homosexual background also for Alberti, also it seems plausible to assume contacts from his side to the accademia. Well, what would be the destiny of such a work ... it would have found "readers in secrecy". One of the readers trustfully arranged the anonymous printed edition, forging the few letters to build the secret "author-signature", well, just edited a little bit or a little bit more or edited considerably.

It's possible, that it (or parts of it) was from Alberti, but probably difficult to prove.

http://books.google.com/books?id=X2-fil ... na&f=false
"The real rule of four" by Joscelyn Godwin

... is seems more sensitive to assume a "Roman cooperation" (with or without Alberti) in the genesis of the text.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: two emperors in the wheel

25
I am reading Liane Lefaivre's Leon Battista Alberti's Hypnerotomachia Poliphili. It is pretty convincing. The Venetian Colonna is absurd, when you look at his life. The Roman Colonna wouldn't have had the visual imagination that the book evidences, its preoccupation with architectural details, their accuracy, the architectural aesthetic it expresses, and the Greek and Latin vocabulary, all of which correlates to Alberti's known works and nothing else. Alberti knew Colonna and spent time at Palestrina. On the other hand, Godwin mentions certain details, such as the relationship of the banquet to the historical banquet and perhaps the Venetian words, that Alberti wouldn't likely have had, having died before the banquet. So perhaps we should say Alberti plus some additions by Colonna , who had kept the work after 1467, and others in Venice where it was published. The reason for supposing Alberti also designed the illustrations is that they are all so integrated with the text, something that would have required an immense amount of time and focus from any other artist.

I think the relationship to Bessarion and Pinturiccio is important relative to the tarot, as I continue to see points of contact between the Hypnerotomachia, Pinturiccio, Alberti's published works, and the Cary Sheet (so far the Popess, the Empress, and maybe the Hanged Man, which I discuss on those threads in "Bianca's Garden"). And actually, for their Egyptianate orientation, in common with the Hynerotomachia and Pinturiccio, I suppose I would also count the Fool, the Magician, the Star, and the Moon, as I elaborated on the "Cary Sheet" Thread (viewtopic.php?f=14&t=566&p=8116&hilit=Egyptianate#p8116 and viewtopic.php?f=14&t=566&p=8217&hilit=Egyptianate#p8217), which I still think even though nobody else seems to notice it. Thanks very much for the link to Godwin's essay, Huck. One claim is that the illustrations must have been done after the Pinturriccio's Borgia murals of 1492-95, because of evident influence. Whether the illustrations in manuscript might have been known to Pinturiccio before he did his murals, and that is the reason for the similarity and not vice versa, is an issue that Godwin does not discuss. He does say that a 1503 work of Pinturiccio is clearly influenced by the Hypnerotomachia.

The words "Philodoxa" (the character in the play) and "Philodoxeus," the play, mean "lover of glory" according to Lefaivre (p. 114).
cron