So you found an ENGLISH Wikipedia article about the SANS CULOTTES of the French revolution that describes the confusion of conception in 18th century France of the Phrygian Cap (that was YOUR only item of interest so far and until NOW – and further on – so it seems... ) with the Pileus/Pilos.
BRAVO!
You may just have mentioned THAT when I spoke about this confusion since my 1st post in this thread – you may as well have corrected
Phaeded when he uttered that « just hitting Wiki » on that subject of interest (the Phrygian Cap) should do and save wasted time and posted that wrong information?
Interestingly you never brought that up or even just replied to THAT!
I'm sure that any interested reader will get that this confusion of conception and the REAL story behind these both items should be interesting for a RESEARCHER.
I've explained all that at length before and since all is only a page back everyone who is interested can read it there.
I really do not understand (logically!) WHY it is so difficult for you to accept new and completing info on the subject of your interest >> The Phrygian Cap << of your FIRST post here in this topic with pics and all.
A normal reaction would have been (at least were I come from!) :
>> Thanks for that information. I didn't know that. THAT is interesting. <<
or
>> I know. But I did not focus on that because... (I'm not interested in the historical background of that confusion... ).
But my 1st addition to your stance on >> The Phrygian Cap << was the MATERIAL the early >> Phrygian Caps << were made of – that you didn't recognize so far in your replies – although it should be hugely interesting for someone (like you) who was wondering about those >> Phrygian Caps << on the heads of the 3 Magi in early Christianity and WHY they were there and WHAT they signified (the men AND the CAPs). I explained that a symbol or depiction could not be understood correctly when the examiner doesn't look at first at ALL the INFO that it is available from any source he can find – to have AFTERWARDS the ability to decide in what CONTEXT the depiction is possibly to be understood!
Elmar Eggert and Angela Schrott came in their « Historische Sprachwissenschaft als philologische Kulturwissenschaft » to a similar conclusion as I myself in my posts here in short :
due to Gérard Seiterle (and his experimental archaeological findings) in : >> Die Urform der phrygischen Mütze << 1985 the
« Marianne (of the French revolution) wears a bull's scrotum on the head «
Now you are not interested in such details (you mentioned that... ) – but I AM and I THINK that many readers are (proven by that round about 1500 clicks your old thread from 2014 got in 2 WEEKS – what is 1/3 on top of what your topic gained in 1 ½ YEARS. So I would think it would be only polite if you wouldn't just complicate a complicated subject : >> The Phrygian Cap << and it's connotations.
WHY these connotations lead (with some cross-referencing and background information into TAROT I only scratched upon so far because when fundamental basic knowledge is not only not present but DENIED it's dignity...
… no one can reflect on what was going on in the heads of Renaissance people with such an attitude because ALL this legendary stuff was the latest NEWS to them and referred to as the highest possible knowledge on what science (ALCHEMY – this was the only SCIENCE they HAD and practiced!!) and art could present!
In our conversations so far you proved again and again your scorn for the period correct social CULTURE of the day (Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism during the Baroque era and Alchemy and Magic from the dark ages on during Renaissance and further... ) - so this statement is mysterious to me :
I don't know, how you define "pre-meditated ideas" and what you precisely meant with this especially in this thread.
I mean that your SCOPE on the story is not wide enough and that you only look at the things that you are OK with because they fit your « footing ».
Because of that I asked you why you did STOP with your RESEARCH on the >> The Phrygian Cap << where you did and switched to the « Crowns » on the heads of the 3 KINGS which both (the Kingship and the number 3) are a later attempt to whiten this dark seed.
I wondered when I read your texts Huck why you wouldn't dig deeper and stop where you did – and use pretty obscure sources for some of your conclusions (concerning Attis and ZEUS Zagreus??) - just to embark on the crown thing what is a very late western invention and what would it get you or anyone else concerning the Phrygian caps on the heads of the wise men? But I do not want to come across as rude – just wondering. °°
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1047&start=20#p16795
With your « ZEUS Zagreus » mistake alone you show again your heartfelt disrespect for antique sources and myths and conception of life and living.
Phrygian cults had been Cybele, Attis and Zeus Zagreus, also called Sabazios:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabazios
Zeus Zagreus had a strong connection to the general Dionysos cult. owonder, the Phrygians lived in a wine region.
Zeus Zagreus (a child god later, but possibly as Sabazios a horse riding god originally) became victim to the Titans, who hunted him. They cut him to pieces. But he returned back.
You really should have searched for Zagreus - he has so deep meaning.
How can you be comfortable with the mindset of people from the 15th Century who were THRIVING in such concepts?
You are not!
You try to make them MODERN people. And so there is no way to understand for example The RED MAN and the item(s) on his table that you deem to be >> interpreted << so fine by that Rosanne person at Aeclectic in some mysterious thread.
Because I said that I plan to explain that card in an extra topic on my own I will give you another example of misconception and misinterpretation by « experts » on the PMB.
HERE I mentioned « The RED MAN » from the PMB only in reference to the SEAFARING connection that the Pileus (that YOU are not interested in... ) on the head of Odysseus AND the nameless BATELEUR of the CARY SHEET bears.
When you look at the Cary-Sheet you will see the later >>BATELEUR<< wear a pileus hat what signifies him as a FREE man – hatched from the egg of the world (in myth and later TdMs) °°
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1047&start=20#p16797
My example of misconception by « experts » on the PMB should be this time « Fortitude »
http://www.themorgan.org/collection/tar ... 01/zoomify
The link is to The MORGAN where this giant is at home today.
The picture is widely (to my knowledge) conceived as HERCULES.
Probably because of the lion in the picture and the club because a « gnarled club « is often found as his favorite weapon in the Greek poems.
This is of course TOTALLY wrong.
As far as HERCULES is concerned his club is described as « olive wood » and he used the club only to stun the Nemean Lion who was his 1st labor of 12. He choked him afterwards with his arms and hands to death in the lion's cave. Ever after HERCULES wore the skin of THIS lion because it was protective against all man made weapons and nothing could penetrate it.
So if you know that (and more > search for Nemean Lion!) - what is wrong with the picture?
1. Olive wood makes GOOD clubs – but if you want to use it as a weapon for some time it has to be strong and well maintained (oiled and polished maybe) what would make it golden brown in color:
http://maasaimarket.ecrater.com/p/14471 ... club-rungu
Should wood be GREEN - like in the picture - it wouldn't be STRONG. It would either be young and soft or old and moldy.
2. There is no CAVE – it's an open field.
3. The gigantic YOUNG man wears NO beard and would be never able to wear that tiny lion skin as armor.
The PMB is very artful and has in scale depiction of the subjects no problem. The only example of such a “scale break” would be the tiny rider above the later baptized JUSTICE – but there it is (and that you can take from the composition and setting of that picture) allegorical.
You & I have discussed the allegorical matter (and it's connotations) before in >> The Visconti-Sforza-Tarot in 3-D << at length already.
So when you have a picture as « Fortitude » it should be best to look at other pictures of HERCULES and see that he is never shown as a giant in this setting with the Nemean lion because this would be totally absurd.
1. A GIANT wouldn't have had any problem with that tiny beast – naughty as it may behave towards MEN – there would have been no heroism in killing it and...
2. … his skin could perhaps serve as a monokini for the big guy but not as full-body-armor.
Confronted with such « in situ problems » an expert should go and look for a better fitting role model... ...and the expert should find...
… ORION. (and search > ...)
ORION is the GIGANTIC son of GAIA.
He is described as a marvelous hunter in fields and woods and his weapon of choice is a BRONZE CLUB. He could kill any prey and predator as a hunter.
BRONZE would turn GREEN with time.
When you now KNOW that ORION is depicted the whole possible BACKstory to the picture goes in a whole other direction and is MUCH deeper and older...
That's why myth's matter. And Filippo Maria Visconti knew that of course.
Like any other Renaissance aristocrat – and it was the entertainment of the day to KNOW this stuff.
You could show off in elaborated conversations...
OK - not here of course – because : HERE legends are only legends so it seems...
Adrian