Huck
Regarding the pairing principle between the Boiardo trumps ..
Renier indeed made a remark about it ...
http://www.tarock.info/renier.htm
... totally 3 sentences. For the Trionfi research it was not deciding, cause autorbis developed his pairing opinion years ago on the base of the short note of Stuart Kaplan to Boiardo, before "Renier in Internet" and before Internet.
As far I see it, Renier didn't see, that it was also expressed by the gender of the central persons, something which was explored ca. 2006 by us ... as far I remember after the translation, cause without the translation it would have been hard to discover this with security, as the text of the tercets contains various names, which are "not central". So the interpretation "before a translation was known" was possible perhaps to Italians, but to understand these Italian opinions one has to understand Italian.
The interest to control "all, what was written before" to a specific topic, is for practical reasons often not possible. A day has 24 hours and life is not endless and the working desk is full of unread stuff. Sure, the new technical possibilities (search engines with their short existence) and the grandious opportunities which have appeared with books.google.com and others, do change here something ... but finally, these "world of opinions, misunderstandings of the researchers, interpretation developments etc." isn't the "real object" ... as it is in this case simply the real poem of Boiardo.
mjhurst said:Yes, many good ideas -- especially simple ones -- tend to be obvious. Boiardo was considerate of his audience by making the first pairing dead easy: Idleness and Labor. The good/bad aspect is equally obvious, as is the fact that the odd-numbered figures are male and the even-numbered ones female. (Some others are very obscure.) However, just because they are obvious does not mean that they are unimportant, nor that the first writer to point that out should not be cited. Who else might have referred to it more explicitly? Someone who has read Renier, Dummett's 1973 article, and other relevant works, would be in a better position to comment. However, although Lothar is probably where I got the idea, Viti appears to have alluded to it in his commentary, where one of the even-numbered comments refers to the previous odd-numbered subject.
Renier indeed made a remark about it ...
Se non che qui non abbiamo una serie fatta a catena, ma le relazioni ci appaiono sempre fra due elementi consecutivi. Il primo posto è del matto, che si fa combinare con l' ultimo trionfo, il mondo, mentre il posto del mondo è occupato dalla fortezza. Nei trionfi intermedi osserviamo che, secondo la serie ascendente, fatica vince ozio, ragione vince desio, grazia vince secreto, pazienza vince sdegno, perseveranza vince errore, fede vince dubbio, sapienza vince inganno, modestia vince caso [È questo l' unico luogo in cui non intendo troppo bene la relazione fra i due elementi.], esperienza vince pericolo, oblivione vince tempo.
http://www.tarock.info/renier.htm
... totally 3 sentences. For the Trionfi research it was not deciding, cause autorbis developed his pairing opinion years ago on the base of the short note of Stuart Kaplan to Boiardo, before "Renier in Internet" and before Internet.
As far I see it, Renier didn't see, that it was also expressed by the gender of the central persons, something which was explored ca. 2006 by us ... as far I remember after the translation, cause without the translation it would have been hard to discover this with security, as the text of the tercets contains various names, which are "not central". So the interpretation "before a translation was known" was possible perhaps to Italians, but to understand these Italian opinions one has to understand Italian.
The interest to control "all, what was written before" to a specific topic, is for practical reasons often not possible. A day has 24 hours and life is not endless and the working desk is full of unread stuff. Sure, the new technical possibilities (search engines with their short existence) and the grandious opportunities which have appeared with books.google.com and others, do change here something ... but finally, these "world of opinions, misunderstandings of the researchers, interpretation developments etc." isn't the "real object" ... as it is in this case simply the real poem of Boiardo.