The Boiardo Tarocchi poem on its way out of some Italian dust

Hi, Huck.

Thanks for your information. In emphasizing Boiardo’s Hermetic influences, I did not mean to denigrate his Kabbalistic ones. I only despair of ever being able to understand them. Unlike Pico, Boiardo’s Kabbalistic references seem to be veiled and elusive. Unlike Pico, we do not know Boiardo’s sources and what they said. Pico, on the other hand, spoke his Kaballa outright. And he must have given Reuchlin a reading list when he visited Pico, because ever since, scholars have successfully used the writings Reuchlin mentioned in his Art of the Kabbalah for understanding Pico. Yet Pico’s Kaballistic theses are still hard to understand!

I agree that we must take the chessboard politics of the time very seriously when examining its cultural products. But I do not think that Innocent VIII attacked Pico so virulently just because he was Ferrarese. Pico’s relatively open ecumenicism was against everything that Innocent, champion of the Inquisition and the Hexenhammer, stood for. Hence his burning of all the undistributed copies of the Theses, his prohibitions against printing or reading them, and his institution of universal censorship over printing presses. (I am not sure all of this is on Wikipedia.) And Pico’s protector was Lorenzo di Medici in Florence, not anybody in Ferrara. Moreover, it seems to me that Innocent’s attack, including Pico’s brief imprisonment, did leave him something of an intellectual cripple—although his other good stuff may still be buried in 15th century Latin.

Then there is the question of the relationship between 15th century Italian Kabbalah and the tarot-style triumph decks. It seems to me that tarot reflects the same spirit as Pico and Boiardo. But connections are hard to establish. Pico’s Kabbalah in the 900 Theses, which remained influential for centuries, seems to me closer to tarot than many others’. I have tried to work out connections between it and the tarot that are not simply projections of my own desire to see them there. They remain loose but still promising. Before posting this note, I put my thoughts up on a blog, if you have time to read them, at http://15thcenturytarot.blogspot.com. The essay is about 3000 words, which seems to me a bit long to post here and slightly off this thread’s subject.

I have now also posted an idea I have about the 15th century Milan decks, on another Aeclectic thread, “I Trionfi Origins?”. It is a variation on the 5x16/5x14 theory.

There is a superficial Pico-tarot connection that you probably already know, since your 1457 web page on Trionfi mentions Galeazzo Sforza’s letters home from Ferrara. The people he was playing cards and tennis with were the Pico della Mirandolas (Gregory Lubkin, A Renaissance Court: Milan under Galeazzo Maria Sforza, p. 309, referencing a letter of 2 August.) Galeazzo mentions only the father, Francesco Pico, because that’s whom Galeazzo’s father wants him supervised by. But there are also two sons around Galeazzo’s age. There might even be a nephew in town. I can easily imagine Boiardo’s parents thinking that his getting to know a future duke couldn’t hurt. Boiardo is around the same age, if we go with Tarotpedia’s version of his birthdate. I suspect Galeazzo is not only spending time with the Picos but actually residing with them, because Galeazzo’s father, concerned that they might spoil the boy, writes Francesco Pico that Galeazzo is to be treated “in a domestic manner and familiarly and no longer as a guest” (Lubkin p. 26).

Of course our Pico, he of the 900 Theses, wasn’t born for another 6 years or so. These facts just show the milieu in which he would have been raised.

In my first post last week I was unable to correlate more than 3 of Boiardo's 10 virtues with corresponding virtues in Corpus Hermeticum Tractate XIII, although I was able to correlate 8 out of 10 of his vices (or more strictly, torments). With some more work, I now can correlate 8 out 10 of Boiardo's virtues with those in "Hermes Trismegistus"--but not as stated there, but as modified to correlate with the torments as listed by Pico. This result, I think, shows that Boiardo's poem really did depend on Pico's 900 theses and was quite unlikely to have been written earlier, i.e. no earlier than 1486.

To review: the 12 "tormentors" in Hermes are as follows: ignorance, grief, incontinence, lust, injustice, greed, deceit, envy, treachery, anger, recklessness, and malice.

The 10 "punishers" in Pico are as follows: Ignorance, sorrow, inconstancy, greed, injustice, lustfulness, envy, fraud, anger, and malice. However two more were listed in his original published text, recklessness and apparently deception. His emendations at the end said to delete these two.

In fact, Pico has made 3 changes in Hermes' list. First, he has dropped recklessness. This is because recklessness and anger form a "disjunction," that is, two expressions of the same power. "Reckless is not separable from anger, they are indistinguishable," says Hermes. The text implies that there are others. For the same reason as he dropped recklessness, Pico has also dropped treachery: it is inseparable from malice. In this way 10 good powers can drive away 12 bad ones: the 12 reduce to 10. Another apparent disjunction in Hermes is incontinence and lust: lust is just one form of incontinence. But instead of dropping one of them, Pico changes incontinence to inconstancy. I do not know what the Latin and Greek words are, but in English these two concepts are different. These are the 3 changes I see Pico making. "Fraud" and "deception" are more likely just two translations of the same concept. Now the question is, which list does Boiardo use?

The 10 good powers in Hermes are knowledge of god, joy, continence, perseverance, justice, liberality, truth, the good, life and light. Pico does not say what his good powers are. But since there are only 10, they should be the same as Hermes.'

So now let us look at the correspondences between the various pairs of virtues and tormentors. Each pair of stanzas in Boairdo gives a tormentor paired with a virtue. In the first of the two stanzas,the tormentor is not always driven out by the virtue. It is sometimes merely opposed by the virtue, but not defeated. It is defeated in the next stanza.

Here is the line-up. This time I will go through the Boiardo poem stanza by stanza. I make minor corrections to Trionfi's translation in brackets. More important ones are in the discussion.

(1) Lazyness kept Sardanapalus idle between feathers,
Lustful concubines and banquet,
For so long that he lost the habit of reigning.

Hyppolita endured such efforts, that she is the only [one]
Of the amazons who is crowned by merit:
And her name still flies in Scythia and in Greece.

Boiardo's Endurance opposing Laziness does not correspond to anything in Hermes or Pico.

(2) Actheon was inflamed of love for an heavenly
Person, so much that he was transformed in[to a] deer:
So a man should not put his desire too high.

Reason made Laura triumph over the perverted
Child Cupidus, because she never moved
Her eye from virtue nor misplaced her foot.

Boiardo's Reason driving out Desire corresponds in Pico to an unspecified virtue driving out Lustfulness. In Hermes it is Perseverence driving out Lust Further afield, there is also Hermes' Continence driving out incontinence. "Reason" seems to be Boiardo's addition. But Laure'a triumph is also one of perseverence.

(3) Antiochus was so secret, that he almost
Died for his love for Stratonica.
But the kind physician helped him effectively.

Grace does not go by chance, but with reason,
To the discreet and wise, for in love can be proud
He that hides his strongest passion.

Boiardo's Grace driving out Secrecy corresponds to Hermes' Joy driving out Sorrow (Pico's Grief). In the poem, Secrecy is a source of Sorrow. I think the sense of the last line and a half of the 2nd stanza is, "...for with love can be pride, /With him who hides the strongest passion" ("ché con amore ha il vanto /Colui che asconde le passion piu forte.")

(4) Anger filled king Herod so much
That he ordered to kill Mariamne than
He calls her, and crying suffers with love.

Psyche was patient in what happened to her,
And because of that she found help in her troubles,
And in the end she was made a Goddess, so that she can be an example for us.

Boiardo's Patience driving out Anger corresponds to Hermes' Light driving out Recklessness/Anger. It is the disjunction here that actually fits both stanzas, because Psyche was only reckless, not angry. The idea of conflating the two torments is probably from Pico. Psyche, of the dripping lamp with which she viewed Cupid one night, is here a symbol of Hermetic Light. The 1st stanza, starting in the 2nd line, would read better as "...That he ordered the killing of Mariamne; then /He calls to her..." (Che fatta occider Marianna, poi /La chiama").

(5) An error make Jabob [Jacob] a slave for seven years,
Because he did not speak of Rachel to Laban;
But time repaired all his damage.

In Penelopes [Penelope] there was such perseverance,
That, by weaving and undoing her web,
She deserved to rejoin her beloved Ulysses.

Boiardo's Perseverence driving out Error corresponds in Pico to an unspecified virtue, certainly Constancy, driving out Inconstancy, or much less well, Hermes' Continence driving out Incontinence (mixed with Perseverence driving out Lust). Penelope's suitors' Error was in thinking Ulysses dead. Jacob and Penelope did not succumb to Error, but overcame it by remaining Constant and Persevering. Here it is Pico's wording that Boiardo seems to favor.

(6) Egeus made for himself a cruel doubt,
So that he was quick to seek death in the sea,
As soon as he saw Theseus come back with black sails.

Sophonisba was faithful to Massinissa
Beyond doubt, because she promised to drink poison
If she were forced to follow the triumph.

Boiardo's Faith driving out Doubt corresponds to Hermes' Knowledge of God driving out Ignorance. (Boiardo can't talk about Hermetic Gnosis, which smacks of heresy, but only Christian Faith.)

(7) Nesso deceived when he said to Dianira:
Give this cloth with blood to Hercules,
If it ever happens that you have to fight for love.

In Hipermestra, as in a cunning snake,
There was wisdom because wearing the clothes of a woman
She saved her husband who was bloodless with fear.

Boiardo's Wisdom driving out Deception corresponds to Hermes' Truth driving out Deceit.

(8) Chance fell on Pompeyus, that for many years
Had seated at the top of the wheel,
But in the end fortune submerged him with troubles.

Emilia, the faithful wife of Scipio, showed
Modesty; because when she found him with a maid,
He did not talk of his sin not to make it public.

Boiardo's Modesty driving out Chance corresponds to Hermes' Generosity driving out Greed. Aemelia meets Scipio's taking of his opportunity, and her own opportunity for vengeance, with a modest, silent Generosity. In the last line, I would prefer "Because, when she found him with a maid, /She did not talk of his sin in order not to make it public" ("..ché, trovato con l'ancilla, /Tacque el peccato per non dargli nota"). That translation fits the classical source and the point of the stanza. See Wikipedia article on Aemilia Tertia. In the translation, "Aemilia" should probably be left with that spelling, as in the original, since references to her in English are spelled that way. "Pompeyus," however, in English is usually spelled "Pompey.")

(9) A spark brings danger of a big fire:
See how Cesar [Caesar] was killed in the senate
By only two people; after he survived the anger of Silla [Sulla].

Experience was in Rhea, who after hiding
Jove in mount Ida, ordered to make noise [noise-making]
So that he could not be found because of his crying.

Boiardo's Experience driving out Peril corresponds to Hermes' Life driving out Treachery/Malice. Again, treachery applies to Caesar's murder but not Jove's. It is the disjunction, probably suggested by Pico's conflation, that applies.
The person called "Scilla" in the original is called either "Scilla" or, more commonly, "Sulla" in English.

(10) Time, you that hurry men to death,
You saved Nestor, and if in the end he came to an end,
It seems impossible to think of such a life.

Oblivion, you are the end and boundary
Of all, you took to Lethe Elice and Dido,
And among your ruins you have fame and time.

Boiardo's Oblivion driving out Time does not correspond to anything in Hermes.

Likewise, Hermes' Good driving out Envy doesn't correspond to anything in Boiardo. Hermes' Justice driving out Injustice doesn't correspond to anything specifically in Boairdo, although it could apply generally to both 4 and 9.

Then in Boiardo there is an 11th torment and virtue at the beginning and end of the section: Fortitude, Boiardo's last virtue, may or may not drive out the World, his first torment. These don't correspond to anything in Hermes or Pico.

Since Boiardo in all 3 cases seems to be following Pico's modifications to Hermes, it seems reasonable to conclude that Boiardo's poem, at least in its final form, came after Pico's Theses, which he wrote in 1486 and published in that year on either 7 November (in Grofton Black, Pico's Heptaplus and Biblical Hermeneutics 2006, p. 7) or 7 December (in S. A. Farmer, Syncretism in the West 1998, p. 3). However since both terms of the disjunctions apply, including the ones missing in Pico, he probably had Hermes in front of him, too.

Hi Mike,

just as a reflection to your ideas ...

The influence of the translation work of Marsilio Ficino (inside the general impact of new ideas since 1470 caused by the increasing book printing industry) was (likely) more collective than individual.

We know, that Boiardo and Pico were cousins, although rather different in age.

Mirandola (Pico) and Scandiano (Boiardo) and Ferrara (the political and cultural center and a general meeting place in the state Ferrara-Reggio-Modena) were places, in which both might have met, exchanged ideas and influenced each other ... although we don't have confirmations of their contact. Around them were others, who also participated in their ideas and who possibibly also contributed to the theme ... although we don't have direct confirmation.

Modifications of a recently invented theory or viewing-point are natural and possibly expression of the circumstance, that the intellectuals of the time tried to adapt the "invented theory" to already established patterns.

Generally Pico is "herofied" by various traditions ... his mental capabilities are described in enthusiastic manner.

This happened inside a collective movement (starting to be very popular in the 50's), which focussed on the idea of "early learning" and education. Valerio, son of Jacopo Antonio Marcello, is an example, it repeats with the comments to the education of Galeazzo Maria Sforza and his sister Ippolita, and goes on with the high education of Giangaleazzo Sforza (who later gave clear expression, that the high education definitely went wrong).

The forerunners of this movement was the school of da Feltre in Mantova and the learning circle of Guarino in Ferrara.

The remarkable thing about Pico was his high birth and his open purse towards intellectual interests. "Laudatio" in 15th century was a matter of invested money ... this is rather obvious in many contexts. So we should cut a little back the herofication of Pico to get a realistic picture.

Remarkable for the evaluation of Pico is the striking coincidence in time between "Mercurio in Rome" (Mercurio alias Giovanni da Correggio was also a man of Ferrara) at Eastern 1485 and the "birth of great theatre" in Ferrara January 1486 and January 1487 at the d'Este court.

We should see, that an invitation of Pico to all great scholars to discuss his theses in Rome (connected with the promise to pay money to the scholars for the charges) was a theatrical action as the activity of Mercurio was a theatrical action.
The interest towards theatre was already great in the 70's of 15th century - we can learn that from the successful printed publication of many theatre texts in the period 1470- 1484, which found great interest. Probably they were made for small community shows not recorded in the history books.

The breakthrough to great theatre probably connects to the death of Sixtus in 1484 ... and the end of the Ferrarese war, which probably had blocked earlier developments.
The earlier "theatrical energy" went more towards Trionfi activities.

Hi Huck. Thanks for the further thoughts. I will reflect upon them. I like your point about his work as theatre. For the moment, let me clarify that I am not saying that Pico was a great scholar or thinker, just that he was influential--and in particular, he probably influenced Boiardo. And maybe it was his version of Kabbalah rather than the Sefer Yetzirah's that influenced the tarot in those days (1586 until at least the 1600's). See below.

Here are some thoughts I've written down since my last post:

In this post I want to continue the exposition of my previous post. This time I want to look at Boiardo’s connection to Kabbalah, and try to determine what his source would have been for such a connection. Trionfi has outlined a set of correspondences to the sephiroth based on the order of Boiardo’s verses (http://www.geocities.con/autorbis/boiardo.htm.). However even if they are correct (as I believe they are), we still don’t know what Boairdo’s basis for such correspondences would have been.

So I want to try to answer the question: What was Boiardo’s source for his order of verses? Even if there is a correspondence between his verses and the Tree of Life, might he not have used some other source, classical Neoplatonic or Christian, that shared a common traditional order similar to that of the sephiroth? Might he have used a Hermetic sequence, such as those found in the Corpus Hermeticum or Pico’s Theses on Hermes Trismegistus? Alternatively, might he have drawn from somewhere else in Pico’s 900 Theses, such as the Theses on Kaballah? I think I can show that this last alternative is the right one, and that therefore, unless Boiardo had the same ideas as Pico before him—not likely—the poem cannot predate Pico’s Theses of 1486. This result, moreover, will support Trionfi’s assignment of sephiroth according to the order of verses in the poem.

First, it is obvious that there is no correlation between the order of the verses and either the sequences of torments and virtues in Hermes’ Tractate XIII, or Pico’s own version of these sequences. In presenting the correspondences stanza by stanza, I had to draw from Hermes’ and Pico’s lists without regard to the orders there. If you look at my last post, you will see that there is no correspondence between the order of the stanzas and the sequences based on Corpus Hermeticum XIII and Pico’s Thesis 27.9.

Yet in Tractate I of the Corpus there is another list of torments or vices. The sequence there corresponds fairly readily to the traditional Ptolemaic order of the planets: “increase and decrease” with the moon (which waxes and wanes; the description perhaps corresponds to our envy of those who have more), “evil machination” with Mercury (known for his trickery, i.e. treachery), “the illusion of longing” with Venus, “the ruler’s arrogance” with the Sun, recklessness with Mars, “the evil impulses that come from wealth” (i.e. greed) with Jupiter, and “the deceit that lies in ambush” with Saturn. (I am quoting from Hermetica, trans. Copenhaver, p. 6). This list is kind of a reduced version, in a quite different order, of the one in Tractate XIII, with the added vice of arrogance.

This order, moreover, is the same as that in the Sefer Yetzirah, in most early versions; it is that of the seven “double letters,” corresponding to the seven planets, as expounded there (http://www.psyche.com/psyche/txt/scholem_sy.html, chapter 4, and the chart at http://www.psyche.com/psyche/yetsira/sy_planetaryattributions.html). If we add the three “mothers” that go above them (chapter 3 of the first web-page just cited), we get the 10 sephiroth.
Furthermore, this order is the same as that of the circles above the earth in medieval Christianity—for example, in Dante’s Paradiso. First come the circles of the seven planets, from the Moon to Saturn, and then three more circles: the Firmament, the Primum Mobile (First Moved), and the Empyrian.

However I think it can be shown that Boiardo’s poem does not follow this order. It follows a different one, which Pico gives in the Kabbalistic sections of his 900 Theses. Here is what Pico says:

“Whatever other Cabalists say, I say that the ten spheres correspond to the ten numerations like this: so that, starting from the edifice, Jupiter corresponds to the fourth, Mars to the fifth, the sun to the sixth, Saturn to the seventh, Venus to the eighth, Mercury to the ninth, the moon to the tenth. Then, above the edifice, the firmament to the third, the primum mobile to the second, the empyrean heaven to the tenth [sic].” (Thesis 48 of the Cabalistic Conclusions Confirming the Christian Religion,” in Farmer p. 541. “Numerations” is Pico’s term for sephiroth.)

Let me restate the Christian/Yetzirah order: (1) Empyrian, (2) Primum Mobile, (3) Firmament, (4) Saturn, (5) Jupiter, (6) Mars, (7) Sun, (8) Venus, (9) Mercury, (10) Moon.

Pico's order is almost the same, except that he moves Saturn to a lower position: (1) Empyrian, (2) Primum Mobile, (3) Firmament, (4) Jupiter, (5) Mars, (6) Sun, (7) Saturn, (8) Venus, (9) Mercury, (10) Moon. The result is that every planet above Venus gets a different number in the sequence. (Here I follow Farmer’s suggestion that Pico’s assignment of the Empyrean to the 10th position is a slip. The “edifice” is the separation between celestial and super-celestial realms.)

If we assign Boiardo's stanza-pairs to these lists, here is what we get for the first three. (1) Laziness vs. endurance is assigned to Empyrian and Crown. My comment: in Aristotle, God, as the perfection to which all things strive, is the “unmoved mover,” eternally unchanging. (2) Desire vs. reason, assigned to the Primum Mobile and Wisdom: this circle is moved by its love for God. In addition, “Reason” is one of the 2nd sephiroth’s characterizations; for Pico it is the Higher Christ, the Logos. (3) Secrecy vs. grace, assigned to Firmament and Intelligence: “Grace” is not unsuitable for this feminine sephira, whom Pico calls “mother of the world.” (The names for the sephiroth in these paragraphs come from Scholem, The Kabbalah, p. 107, as typical 14th century names that Farmer says Pico would probably have known.)

Then there are the last three. (8) Chance vs. modesty with Venus and Majesty: Venus as goddess of transient pleasures looks for her chances, but can be modest and forgiving in her positive aspect. (9) Peril vs. experience with Mercury and Foundation: Peril is part of a Hermetic disjunction with Treachery, which we have seen applies to Mercury in Corpus Hermeticum I. Positively, Mercury mediates between the eternal world and the world of time. (10) As for time vs. oblivion, for the Moon and Kingdom, this is the last pair of stanzas, just as the Moon is the lowest planet. It is the gateway from the eternals to our world. Also, the phases of the moon are one measure of time.

For the middle 4, the Christian/Yetzirah model gives: (4) anger vs. patience to Saturn and Endurance; (5) error vs. perseverence to Jupiter and Love/Piety; (6) doubt vs. faith to Mars and Judgment; (7) deception vs. wisdom to the Sun and Beauty. (The name for the 4th sephira here comes from Farmer’s emendation to Scholem for that sephira only. It is clear from Pico’s text that he knew it as Love or Piety.)

In contrast, here are the assignments using Pico: (4) anger vs. patience to Jupiter and Love/Piety; (5) error vs. perseverence to Mars and Judgment; (6) doubt vs. faith to the Sun and Beauty; (7) deception vs. wisdom to Saturn and Endurance.

These last assignments of Boiardo's pairings with planetary energies are the more satisfactory of the two sets, based on the traditional understanding of the planets. Jupiter in his myth, as with all rulers, does get angry and need patience with his subjects. Perseverence, in contrast, is the quality of the warrior, to overcome difficulties and mistakes. Since the Sun is a symbol of Christ, overcoming doubt with faith is more appropriate to the believer than overcoming deception with wisdom. Deception is the attribute of Saturn in Corpus Hermeticum I; and in Ficino’s influential Renaissance account (in Three Books on Life), wisdom was associated with Saturn on his positive side.

Thus it is Pico's “Cabalist” sequence that fits the order of Boiardo's stanzas. Moreover, Pico’s sequence is probably unique to him, not drawn from his sources. The beginning phrase, “Whatever other cabalists say, I say…” (“Quicquid decant caeteri cabalistae, ego…dico’) is one that Pico uses often. Farmer suggests that it is a qualifier written to indicate that what follows is Pico’s own view, not that of his sources. Hence it is unlikely that Boiardo would have gotten this sequence anywhere else. Hence he is unlikely to have written the poem before 1486, when the Theses were written and published.

This connection to Pico’s “Cabalistic Conclusions” is significant not only for dating the poem, but also as evidence that people were associating Kabbalah with the tarot even at this early date. But from these planetary assignments in Pico, we cannot go directly to what the assignments would be to particular cards popularly in use. Boiardo likely had in mind a Kabbalah-based set of cards, but not necessarily a set that already existed. To assign planets (and sephiroth) to cards, more work is required. See my essay “Pico’s ‘Cabalistic Conclusions’ and the Tarot” at http://15thcenturytarot.blogspot.com.

Mike wrote

Here is what Pico says:

“Whatever other Cabalists say, I say that the ten spheres correspond to the ten numerations like this: so that, starting from the edifice, Jupiter corresponds to the fourth, Mars to the fifth, the sun to the sixth, Saturn to the seventh, Venus to the eighth, Mercury to the ninth, the moon to the tenth. Then, above the edifice, the firmament to the third, the primum mobile to the second, the empyrean heaven to the tenth [sic].” (Thesis 48 of the Cabalistic Conclusions Confirming the Christian Religion,” in Farmer p. 541. “Numerations” is Pico’s term for sephiroth.)

Let me restate the Christian/Yetzirah order: (1) Empyrian, (2) Primum Mobile, (3) Firmament, (4) Saturn, (5) Jupiter, (6) Mars, (7) Sun, (8) Venus, (9) Mercury, (10) Moon.

Pico's order is almost the same, except that he moves Saturn to a lower position: (1) Empyrian, (2) Primum Mobile, (3) Firmament, (4) Jupiter, (5) Mars, (6) Sun, (7) Saturn, (8) Venus, (9) Mercury, (10) Moon. The result is that every planet above Venus gets a different number in the sequence. (Here I follow Farmer’s suggestion that Pico’s assignment of the Empyrean to the 10th position is a slip. The “edifice” is the separation between celestial and super-celestial realms.)

Click to expand...

I don't know, if one could call something the "Christian/Yetzirah order". The Sepher Yetzirah knows different versions, if Christian orders had been stable in this pont, I don't know.
"Every kabbalists had his own system" was analysed by Gerschom Scholem and when I read, that Pico opened with "Whatever other Cabalists say, ... "
I interprete, that Pico was confused about different statements in his sources (to the question of the "real order"), and that he couldn't help himself only by offering his "own system" to get out of the observed contradictions.

I think, it's difficult to take sharp conclusions.
In the Jewish system of the week the Sabbat (Saturday) is centered - related to Saturn. When Pico took this planet (cause of this reason) in the middle of the number row as the 7th Spehira between the 4th-6th place and 8th - 10th, so it was possibly a personal invention ... I don't know of anybody else, who did so before.
But I wouldn't give a guarantee, that Pico didn't had a forerunner in this interpretation.

Hi Huck. Thanks for your comments. I was away for a couple of weeks. You are totally correct. Actually, when I went back to look at the Zefer Yetzirah, I saw that it didn't explicitly assign sefiroth to planets at all: I was just making an assumption, that the order of presentation was the order of assignment, but there is no reason to assume that. For one thing, if it were true, then the 6th sephira, which sources in my local library say often was identified with the Sun, would have had to be assigned Mars. I still think Boiardo's poem fits Pico's order, but whether Boiardo could have gotten it from a Jewish source is, as you say, unknown. There is also the question of whether the poem also fits other known assignments of sephiroth to planets. I will work on this some more.