Hi Huck,Huck wrote: 24 Jun 2025, 08:11
The intro speaks of the year 1479 and the politcal engagement of Eleanore d'Aragon in the Pazzi war.
In the footnotes W.L. Gundersheimer is mentioned.
If you look through the 22 tercets of the trump-suit with some critical view, you can see, that the male protagonists suffer at their own stupidity and the female persons get the more clever parts.
Trump 1 Laziness v. Trump 2 Effort...
.... and so on
Thanks for the further clarification and references,, all of us I think have recognized, and none of us I think have denied, the Female V. Male schema . I see the line you're drawing from Gundersheimer’s thesis on shifting gendered discourses in Ferrara, from women being seen as "equal to men" to “better than men” and how you’re connecting that to Boiardo’s tarot, particularly in the way the female figures seem more admirable or morally successful than the male ones.
However, I’m not convinced that this should be read primarily as a contribution to the querelle des femmes or a statement of feminist ideology emerging post-1487. The pattern you’ve identified, men as victims of folly or passion & women as exemplars of virtue and strength, seems more coherently understood in the context of the medieval and early Renaissance psychomachia tradition, where vices and virtues are personified and placed in moral opposition. In that context, women often serve as exemplars not because of a political or gendered agenda, but because certain virtues had long been allegorized as feminine (e.g., Humility, Chastity, Prudence) and demonstrated through biblical or classical heroines.
Your own example with Sardanapalus and Hyppolita shows this: Sardanapalus is slothful and effeminate not simply because he is male, but because he embodies a vice, while Hyppolita is industrious and heroic not just as a woman, but as a personification of Effort or Fortitude.
This is consistent with a visual tradition too where we often see women like Judith or Jael depicted as allegories of moral strength, not as figures in a debate over the superiority of women per se. In fact, the very imagery you find in Boiardo’s tarot (Judith, Laura triumphing over Cupid, Lucretia) is typical of virtue iconography, not polemical gender commentary. The message is ethical, not gendered: reason triumphs over desire, chastity over lust, action over passivity.
So rather than seeing Boiardo’s poem as emerging from a new wave of feminism circa 1487, I’d place it in the well-established tradition of allegorical moral instruction, where virtues (often feminized) are shown triumphing over vices (often masculinized). The poem draws on this tradition both visually and narratively, and fits within a much longer arc of moral didacticism that predates Eleanor d’Aragon and her cultural circle.
That said, Boiardo may well have shaped his poem to flatter and appeal to a courtly audience that included powerful women like Eleanor, but that is part of courtly decorum, not necessarily evidence of ideological feminism.
Image:
Humility Slaying Pride, Speculum Virginum