This point needs to be more fully discussed.The Middle Ages were essentially the ages of allegory.Theology and philosophy treated their categories as independent beings, and poetry and art had but little to add, in order to give them personality.Here all the countries of the West were on the same level.
Their world of ideas was rich enough in types and figures, but when these were put into concrete shape, the costume and attributes were likely to be unintelligible and unsuited to the popular taste.This, even in Italy, was often the case, and not only so during the whole period of the Renaissance, but down to a still later time.To produce the confusion, it was enough if a predicate of the allegorical figures was wrongly translated by an attribute.Even Dante is not wholly free from such errors, and, indeed, he prides himself on the obscurity of his allegories in general.Petrarch, in his 'Trionfi,' attempts to give clear, if short, descriptions of at all events the figures of Love, of Chastity, of Death, and of Fame.Others again load their allegories with inappropriate attributes.In the Satires of Vinciguerra, for example, Envy is depicted with rough, iron teeth, Gluttony as biting its own lips, and with a shock of tangled hair, the latter probably to show its indifference to all that is not meat and drink.We cannot here discuss the bad influence of these misunderstandings on the plastic arts.They, like poetry, might think themselves fortunate if allegory could be expressed by a mythological figure--by a figure which antiquity saved from absurdity--if Mars might stand for war, and Diana for the love of the chase.
Nevertheless art and poetry had better allegories than these to offer, and we may assume with regard to such figures of this kind as appeared in the Italian festivals, that the public required them to be clearly and vividly characteristic, since its previous training had fitted it to be a competent critic.Elsewhere, particularly at the Burgundian court, the most inexpressive figures, and even mere symbols, were allowed to pass, since to understand, or to seem to understand them, was a part of aristocratic breeding.On the occasion of the famous 'Oath of the Pheasant' in the year 1454, the beautiful young horsewoman, who appears as 'Queen of Pleasure,' is the only pleasing allegory.The huge epergnes, with automatic or even living figures within them, are either mere curiosities or are intended to convey some clumsy moral lesson.A naked female statue guarding a live lion was supposed to represent Constantinople and its future savior, the Duke of Burgundy.The rest, with the exception of a Pantomime-- Jason in Colchis--seems either too recondite to be understood or to have no sense at all.Oliver de la Marche, to whom we owe the description of the scene (Memoires, ch.29), appeared costumed as 'The Church,' in a tower on the back of an elephant, and sang a long elegy on the victory of the unbelievers.