Re: What are the documents for Marziano's dates?

#81
A few days ago I learned that Leonardo Bruni was secretary to Gregory XII at the same time Marziano was one of his clerics (also called "notary") of the Apostolic Chamber as well. Of course Bruni was in Rome before Marziano, as a secretary under Innocent VII, then Gregory XII, then Alexander V, then John XXIII (both of these latter now considered anti-popes). Marziano only worked for Gregory XII, and by February 1409 he was already back in Tortona where he was one of five "anziani" for the Ghibelline League formed there. I have no further information on that league or what such leagues might do in general, it seems like it would require going to Tortona and looking in the Registri Opizzoni or in Rodolfo Maiocchi's transcription of these registers held in Pavia (both used by Ugo Rozzo).

I have looked at Bruni's letters, which show that he went to Lucca with Gregory XII in 1407-1408, which is from where the document naming Marziano was issued on April 24 1408.

This is the closest we can bring Marziano to a major humanist and mainstream humanism so far.

In all of the documents I have seen where Marziano is mentioned, he is just one of a number of eminent men who are present as witnesses or guarantors of the document. I have not been able to see the few where he is the main notarial signature. I would like to have his signature!
Image

Re: What are the documents for Marziano's dates?

#82
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:
09 Nov 2019, 09:53
Phaeded wrote:
09 Nov 2019, 03:25
I'm more interested in why Marcello created that oddly themed deck
Marcello created what deck?
Guilty of the same sloppiness as Mike. ;-)
Meant Marziano.

Regarding what might have been on Bruni's mind when in the same orbit as Marziano c. 1407-1408, you might find this Hankin's piece on Bruni's letters of interest (I don't know if Marziano is mentioned in this voluminous collection of letters):
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/hand ... sAllowed=y
After Chrysoloras’ departure [1399], Bruni began to publish his first Latin translations from the
Greek
, beginning with the phenomenally successful Epistola ad adolescentes of St. Basil
of Caesarea (ca. 1401), the most popular translation from the Greek of the entire
Renaissance.5 He also began to compose his first independent literary works, the Dialogi
ad Petrum Histrum (1404/5) and the famous Laudatio Florentinae urbis (1404), which
were the first expressions of what has become known in modern Renaissance
historiography as “civic humanism.”6
There are some signs that Bruni in this period hoped to succeed the elderly
Salutati as chancellor of Florence, but in 1405 another, more attractive opportunity arose.
A new pope, Innocent VII, had been elected the previous October and needed an
apostolic secretary to compose his official correspondence. Bruni’s friend Poggio
Bracciolini, who had already found a position in the curia as a papal abbreviator,
proposed him for the office. Bruni set off for Rome in March of 1405 and won the post
after a literary contest with his rival, Jacopo Angeli da Scarperia, another disciple of
Salutati and Chrysoloras, later the translator of Ptolemy’s Cosmographia.
So a budding interest in Greek works as well an unrelated pro-Florentine work aimed squarely at Milan, and yet Bruni ends up in the Papal camp, torn by Schism.

For the period closer in time to Marziano's creation of the game....and IF Bruni was on Marziano's mind at all:
In the early 1420s [Bruni] also produced
several extremely influential treatises: the De militia (1421 or 1422), a treatise on civic
knighthood that attempts to classicize the medieval chivalric tradition; the Isagogicon
moralis disciplinae (1424/25), a popular compendium of Aristotle’s Ethics; the De studiis
et literis (c. 1424), a major statement of humanist educational ideals; and the De recta
interpretatione (1424/26), the first treatise on translation in the Western tradition. In
addition he composed a number of historical works, essentially compendia from Greek
sources
, to fill the gaps in Latin historical literature: the De primo bello punico (1422),
based on Polybius, which filled a gap in Livy’s Roman History;....
So in the earlier period when they crossed paths, we have Bruni's works resulting from his first engagement with Greek and then "compendia from Greek" in the early 1420s. Ignorant of Greek, Marziano might have wanted to at least offer something to his prince regarding the God's origins (the game), which of course are older in their Greek manifestations (not that Marziano doesn't write his treatise in Latin and use Latin names, but explaining the gods via euhemerism, these would have been primarily Greek heroes tuned into gods; e.g. Jupiter "who was the King of Athens while antiquity was still rough and wild"). So the "Tractatus" does not unearth or translate Greek texts, but still seeks to go to the primal roots of the Gods and thereby somehow participate in the early Renaissance's recovery of classical antiquity.

Phaeded

Re: What are the documents for Marziano's dates?

#83
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote: Mike - the simple answer is that my overall impression is that he is introducing Isabelle to both this game called Trionfi, and also, especially since it is a heroic story, to Visconti’s Michelino da Besozzo deck. I see no reason to suspect anything else, so it is not worth my time to speculate. Evidence comes, I think about it.

But I can’t summon the energy to try any harder to convince you of my point of view. The main reason is that I believe you don’t really care. Here’re some reasons for why I think that:

- for instance, in response to your post 67 above, I pointed out that you consistently and mistakenly wrote “Cossa” when the person in question was Scipio Caraffa, but you still have not corrected your post
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1422&p=21272#p21272

In your penultimate post, number 75, above, you have clearly confused the person again:
mikeh wrote:
03 Nov 2019, 10:04
That would entail that Marcello didn't teach her the game, even though he would have had motive, means, and opportunity.
When did Marcello have any opportunity beyond this letter? He never met Isabelle, ever. Do you actually mean her husband, King René? You confused Marcello with René. ...

Next there is something absolutely bonkers, asserting that the name “taro” for the game might have been known in Provence in the 1440s!
The question is of some importance regarding whether Trionfi then was already known not so much in Naples but in Provence (as "taro", presumably) and whether it would have been known after 1449 in what was later France, among certain nobles.
Finally another sloppy mistake, writing Marziano for Marcello.
When did Marziano get the ordinary triumphs, while he was talking to Scipio or before then?
You take me to task for not translating the Latin just to your liking, but you yourself repeatedly make careless mistakes, confusing the Italian M-names and C-names as if it doesn’t matter anyway, we are supposed to know what you mean, and you don’t even bother to correct these mistakes when it is pointed out.

Yes, I have been careless in my posts lately. Not only what you point out, but I misread an email from Emilia Maggio and misremembered Phaeded on Anghieri. I have now gone through and made the corrections, at least on this thread. Usually I do it right away, but I didn't this time. I am not sure what is at the root of my problem, why I am not taking the time to read carefully, even what I have just written! Part of it is that I have other projects at the moment. Also, lately I have developed the habit of only looking at THF before I go to bed and then trying to write short, quick comments that turn out not to be short or quick. So I stay up rather late (with the quality going down) but wanting to be done with it, so I can sleep. But you guys deserve better from me.

Ross wrote
But to your point, it doesn’t matter if someone, anyone, has motive, means, and opportunity, when there has been no crime. The “crime” in question would be if there is any reason to suspect that Isabelle knew the game before Marcello’s letter. If there were some hint, any evidence or suggestion, that she knew the game already, then we could suspect René.
Well, there is maybe a hint in the letter: Marcello does not say anything about how Cossa can teach her the game. If I were writing such a letter and thought that the recipient didn't know how to play triumphs, I would say something to the effect that Cossa is at her service in that matter. It serves to introduce Cossa as a teacher, a role for which Cossa himself might feel uncomfortable about suggesting to such an august personage.

But the main reason for suspecting that the "crime" had been committed is that Rene had motive, means, and opportunity, The motives are pretty strong: not only for him to learn the game, but also, he would be rewarded for teaching his wife (by his wife's gratitude, and their enjoyment playing it together). There doesn't have to have been an actual crime for one to have reason to suspect one has happened or might happen. If, for example, I knew that person A thought his wife had been unfaithful to him, and I had reason to believe that A wanted his wife dead, so he could marry someone else (assuming divorce not an option), and he was in a position to get away with it, I would have reason to think he might kill her (parallel to "Rene might teach her the game").

It isn't that I don't care, or am simply criticizing for the sake of criticizing. Or "arguing for anything but the way Ross sees it," as you say later in your post. This is the only time in this whole thread that I haven't been thoroughly satisfied with your answer to a question of mine! And I am not so much criticizing as asking for more clarification. That you get so irritated with me makes me wonder whether we might have a fundamental difference as to what counts as evidence. From my perspective, it seems like you approach it mainly like a detective on a case (at least when opposing me), while I am trying also to be like someone (psychologist, day-trader, manager of a witness-protection program, etc.) assessing a situation beforehand, based on the situation then.

The particular issue about Isabelle is one that I have been wondering about for a while, well, at least three years and eight months, since I read and translated Depaulis's article "Trionfi alia franciosa finiti e non finiti’ - Le tarot en France avant 1500". (viewtopic.php?p=16776#p16776 and the post following). Depaulis asks of Isabelle and the cards that Marcello sent, "Did she play with these cards?" His answer (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-utCoV_mKF-w/ ... nter_8.jpg, with apologies for the OCR program, or my setting of it then):
Si le jeu peint par Michelino da Besozzo était pourvu d'un texte de presentation du a Marziano da Tortona, 1autre jeu, que Marcello avait tenu a offrir aussi, n était accompagne d aucune regle écrite. Giovanni Cossa en aurait-il enseigne la pratique a Isabelle et a ses suivant(e)s? A mon avis, les deux jeux envoyés par Marcello ont du paraitre comme des curiosites artistiques sans autre utilisation, le «vrai» jeu de tarot passant de surcroit pour secondaire.

If the pack painted by Michelino da Besozzo was provided with a presentation text due to Marziano da Tortona, the other pack that Marcello also offered was not accompanied by any written rules. Would Giovanni Cossa have taught the practice to Isabelle and those with her? In my opinion both decks sent by Marcello must have appeared as artistic curiosities without other use, the "real" tarot deck additionally appearing secondary.
The passage continues on the next page (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-utCoV_mKF-w/ ... nter_8.jpg)
On note cependant que René II, petit-fils du roi René, jouait «au triomphe>> a Vezelise (capitale du comté de Vaudemont) en 1496:
Au Roy [René II d'Anjou, lui aussi pretendant au royaume de Naples], le xxixe jour d'avril, pour jouer au triumphe a Vezelise, deux frans.
Encor audit seigneur Roy, le premier jour de may pour jouer audit triumphe a Vezelise, deux florins d'or.
Il a été suggeré que ce triumphe pouvait designer le tarot. Mais il n'est pas possible d'etre affirmatif, car le jeu de triomphe, attesté dans les sources francaises a partir de 1480, connait une longue serie de citations aux XVIe et XVIIe siecles dont certaines sont assez edairantes: il s'agit d'un jeu de levées simple, joue le plus souvent a quatre avec des cartes ordinaires. Il serait étonnant que cet emploi de 1496 fasse exception. Mais il est vrai que nous sommes en Lorraine, duche d Empire, et non en France, oh sont localisées les autres references. Si Rene II n'a pu connaitre sa grand-mere Isabelle de Lorraine, morte en 1453, alors qu il n avait que deux ans, nous savons qu'il a passe sa jeunesse a la cour de son grand-pere Rene d'Anjou, entre Angers et la Provence. La tradition du tarot aurait pu y survivre et lui etre transmise. La question reste done un peu
en suspens.

One notes however that Rene II, grand-son of King René, played "at triomphe” at Vezelise (county capital of Vaudemont) in 1496:
To King [René II of Anjou, also pretending to have the kingdom of Naples] the 29th day of April, to play at triumphe Vezelise two gold florins.
Again to said Lord King, the first day of May, to play at said triumphe at Vezelise, two gold florins.
It has been suggested that this triumphe could designate the tarot. It is not possible to be affirmative, since the game of triumph, attested in French sources from 1480, knows a long series of quotes in the 16th and 17th centuries, some quite illuminating: it is a simple game of raises, played mostly in fours with ordinary cards. It would be surprising if the use of 1496 is an exception. But it is true that we are in Lorraine, Duchy of the Empire, not in France, where the other references are located. If Rene II could not know his grandmother Isabelle of Lorraine, deceased in 1453, when he was two years old, we know that he spent his youth at the court of his grandfather René of Anjou between Angers and Provence. The tradition of the tarot could have survived and been transmitted to him. The question remains therefore a little open.
This is the context of my interest. There is in fact some hint that Rene I knew how to play triumphs, looking backwards from 1496 - although none, from this standpoint, that he taught his wife. However there is some hint of both possibilities even without this information, namely that he had means, motive, and opportunity, both for learning the game, starting from the time he first came to Florence, and also for teaching it to his wife in the future after that.

Re: What are the documents for Marziano's dates?

#84
It's a common appearance in the world of card players, that rules for a game can have differences. For Doppelkopf it's a common feature, that 4 persons, who meet to play together for the first time, need some time to agree on rules, before the game starts. For Doppelkopf I would assume, that there might be easily 100 variants, although the base is rather fixed. That's natural, if an authoritative rulebook doesn't exist. That it doesn't exist is the common state for a practical card game. Skat got definitive rules by the foundation of a Skat organization about 70 years after the first group, which invented the game in Altenburg at begin of 19th century (first noted 1813).
Doppelkopf got fixed rules with the foundation of the Deutschen Doppel-Verband in the 1980s. The Verband needs fixed rules to organize tournaments. I would assume, that the number of players, who play with the fixed rules is much smaller than the number of players, who just play according their own rules. Probably something of 0.5 percent. Actually I met 2 players, who informed me about the existence of the Verband and the rules. All others just made, what pleased them.

Skat rules are more fixed, thanks to the long tradition of this game and related tounaments. Possibly Bismarck was a factor for this. He loved this game. Skat became the National card game of Germany.
https://www.deutscherskatverband.de/geschichte.html
The Verband has nowadays 20.000 members.

One should view Isabella's problem with the cards with some relaxation.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: What are the documents for Marziano's dates?

#85
I think that none of us think it is a big problem.

The unique question for Triumphs is whether anyone who had not seen the permanent trumps before, would know what to do with them. Especially if Marcello's first, cheap deck, did not have numbered trumps. Would she even know what order to put them in?

This is why Depaulis suspected that the card decks remained mere curiosities to Isabelle and her circle, and had no deeper effect on cardplay in France. Mike quoted those remarks above.

I think it is plausible to imagine Giovanni Cossa teaching her to play (after Marcello taught him, unless he already knew it). Mike thinks it is equally possible that René learned to play the game in Florence, and taught her.
Image

Re: What are the documents for Marziano's dates?

#86
mikeh wrote:
11 Nov 2019, 23:14
Yes, I have been careless in my posts lately.
Thanks for clarifying. I really wondered, since that carelessness was unlike you.

If you have to read THF just before bed, maybe just note your main points for later and sleep on the responses. That's what I do. It's slow around here, things aren't likely to get lost in a barrage of posts.
Well, there is maybe a hint in the letter: Marcello does not say anything about how Cossa can teach her the game. If I were writing such a letter and thought that the recipient didn't know how to play triumphs, I would say something to the effect that Cossa is at her service in that matter. It serves to introduce Cossa as a teacher, a role for which Cossa himself might feel uncomfortable about suggesting to such an august personage.
Marcello was the weak partner here - Cossa had known Isabelle since she came to Naples in 1435 (all the way to when she left in 1440, but she was alone in regency until 1438). He knew her better than he knew René. He was surely on the most familiar terms with her, and if he could show her how to play, he would have.
But the main reason for suspecting that the "crime" had been committed is that Rene had motive, means, and opportunity,
But we know that Cossa also had all those things as well, and he actually did have the cards on him. We don't know anthing like that about René, so it is a red herring to dream up this scenario. Cossa's motive, means, and opportunity are sufficient explanation, if any is needed. An explanation for how she might have known the game is not in fact needed, though, because we don't know if she ever played it. It might be that she just took both sets of cards as "curiosities" as Thierry says.

That René's grandson René nearly 50 years later is recorded to have played "triomphe" is also just as Thierry says - an intriguing possibility but one of which we cannot be sure, since Triomphe was also the name of a plain-trick game played with regular cards by this time. So we just have to leave it at that.
It isn't that I don't care, or am simply criticizing for the sake of criticizing. Or "arguing for anything but the way Ross sees it," as you say later in your post. This is the only time in this whole thread that I haven't been thoroughly satisfied with your answer to a question of mine! And I am not so much criticizing as asking for more clarification. That you get so irritated with me makes me wonder whether we might have a fundamental difference as to what counts as evidence. From my perspective, it seems like you approach it mainly like a detective on a case (at least when opposing me), while I am trying also to be like someone (psychologist, day-trader, manager of a witness-protection program, etc.) assessing a situation beforehand, based on the situation then.
Murder of unfaithful wife, witness-protection program.... interesting the analogies you bring up! (just kidding). For me it is just that if there is something to explain, you look for the explanation. In this case there is nothing to explain, the cards disappear in November 1449, and all we know is that the book ended up there, so we can assume that Marcello's gifts got to her. But after that, even posing the question about whether or not she played card games with them is just natural curiosity, not anything we can be sure of answering.
Au Roy [René II d'Anjou, lui aussi pretendant au royaume de Naples],
"pretendant" here means "claimant," so the translation is "he also a claimant to the kingdom of Naples." An older translation might say "he also a pretender to the throne of Naples."
Il a été suggeré que ce triumphe pouvait designer le tarot. Mais il n'est pas possible d'etre affirmatif, car le jeu de triomphe, attesté dans les sources francaises a partir de 1480, connait une longue serie de citations aux XVIe et XVIIe siecles dont certaines sont assez edairantes: il s'agit d'un jeu de levées simple, joue le plus souvent a quatre avec des cartes ordinaires. Il serait étonnant que cet emploi de 1496 fasse exception. Mais il est vrai que nous sommes en Lorraine, duche d Empire, et non en France, oh sont localisées les autres references. Si Rene II n'a pu connaitre sa grand-mere Isabelle de Lorraine, morte en 1453, alors qu il n avait que deux ans, nous savons qu'il a passe sa jeunesse a la cour de son grand-pere Rene d'Anjou, entre Angers et la Provence. La tradition du tarot aurait pu y survivre et lui etre transmise. La question reste done un peu
en suspens.
"jeu de levées simple" means "plain-trick game." It is hard for the machine to know these technical terms. Plain trick is distinguished from point-trick, meaning that the number of tricks determines the winner, not by counting the point values of the cards taken in tricks.
This is the context of my interest. There is in fact some hint that Rene I knew how to play triumphs, looking backwards from 1496 - although none, from this standpoint, that he taught his wife. However there is some hint of both possibilities even without this information, namely that he had means, motive, and opportunity, both for learning the game, starting from the time he first came to Florence, and also for teaching it to his wife in the future after that.
The only thing interesting about René in Florence in relation to Tarot is that we know it existed at the time he was there, but there is no evidence that he himself had acquaintance with the game. Having the means, motive, and opportunity was true of everybody in Florence at the time then. As well as for everybody in Ferrara. But the fact that he was probably in the vicinty of a pack or two doesn't mean anything in the absence of evidence that he knew it. If he knew it in Provence, we could say "hey, maybe he learned it in Florence!" But we don't have such an indication. Plenty of people who were in Florence at the time don't mention it. For instance, Phaeded and I are talking about Leonardo Bruni, who wrote the history of Florence, up until shortly after the Battle of Anghiari. He was an important person in Florence during the exact time the game was first recorded as made and played, but he doesn't mention it either. He had the means, motive, and opportunity far more than René, but he is silent on the Game of Triumphs. He even had more "motive" to say something, since we have good reason to think it was invented in his city!

Actually, I'm not sure we can assume René had "motive." I don't know the evidence that he, personally, played cards. He likes jousts and tournaments, spectacles like that, maybe chess (there is an inventory of his belongings), but I don't recall him owning any packs of cards.

So to me it is weak, simply without foundation, to say that because the game existed at the time that René was there, he must have known it. Especially since we know, factually, that Giovanni Cossa at the very least delivered both sets of cards to Isabelle. So if she knew how to play, the logical choice is Cossa. Both Phaeded and Thierry agree with that logic.
Image

Re: What are the documents for Marziano's dates?

#87
Phaeded wrote:
11 Nov 2019, 21:48
Regarding what might have been on Bruni's mind when in the same orbit as Marziano c. 1407-1408, you might find this Hankin's piece on Bruni's letters of interest (I don't know if Marziano is mentioned in this voluminous collection of letters):
Thanks, I found Hankins.

I've looked through Bruni's letters in the Latin, and no Martianus, Marcianus, Martiano, Marciano, is mentioned. There are indices in the books as well, but the OCR searches are necessary and quite effective, as you can test with other words.

But only a few letters, in Books II and III, are relevant to specifically the time in Siena, Lucca, and Siena again, when he might have had reason to mention a Cleric of the Apostolic Chamber named Marziano.

In the Letters, Mehus edition, those written from Lucca to when he is in Rimini with Gregory XII are:

1. First from Lucca, no date, Book II, letter 17 (p. 54; “postquam Lucam pervenimus” after we arrived at Lucca); the previous letter is written from Siena, which Gregory XII sources say he left on 23 January, 1408.
2. Last in Tuscany - Arezzo 4 December (“Aretii II. Nonas Decembris”) 1408 Book III, letter 4 (p. 71)
3. Rimini 1 February (“Kal. Februarii Arimini”) 1409 Book III, letter 5 (p. 72)

Since Marziano was in Tortona on 2 February 1409, he had left Gregory’s service before then. I assume it would have been before Gregory XII went to Siena on his way to Rimini, so even before they went to Arezzo and crossed the Apennines to the Adriatic coast.

For everybody's use, the best up-to-date gathering of online sources for our kind of texts is Dana F. Sutton, "An Analytic Bibliography of on-line Neo-Latin texts" (64,020 entries as of 11 November 2019)
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/bibl ... /index.htm

Bruni’s letters, Mehus edition
https://books.google.fr/books?id=1rQPAA ... &q&f=false
or
https://books.google.fr/books?id=rI02AA ... &q&f=false

Coluccio Salutati’s letters
https://archive.org/details/epistolario ... t/page/648

Bruni, History of the Florentine People, volume 3, translation Hankins; account of battle of Anghiari is the conclusion
https://books.google.fr/books?id=V7WfYP ... &q&f=false
Volume 2
https://books.google.fr/books?id=IA_i6m ... &q&f=false
Volume 1
https://books.google.fr/books?id=rT28aN ... &q&f=false
Image

Re: What are the documents for Marziano's dates?

#88
Good advice, Ross, about my carelessness.

Ross wrote, 12 November:
So to me it is weak, simply without foundation, to say that because the game existed at the time that René was there, he must have known it.
I never said "he must have known it". I only say, with some foundation, that it is reasonably possible that he learned it in Florence. I am still bothered about the methodological implications of such misrepresentations of my position, by both you and Phaeded (who suggested I had a theory about Isabelle). My position is simply that Rene could, reasonably, have learned the game in Florence, and not because he was necessarily interested in the game but because he probably had a lot of free time and there would have been some interesting pictures. I do not mean to imply that you are deliberately misrepresenting me, merely that my "could, reasonably" somehow doesn't fit into your methodology and has to be turned into an assumption I am making. It is not! I am not making assumptions. I am only proposing various alternatives that seem to me reasonably possible.
Phaeded wrote:
04 Nov 2019, 03:19
mikeh wrote:
03 Nov 2019, 10:04
Phaeded: ... What I have a problem with is that either of these decks with seven virtues would have been an ur-tarot, for reasons I have produced elsewhere. I also have a problem thinking the game originated in Angieri, as opposed to Florence, and hence that Filippo would have simply taken a Florentine game with his devices, especially one reminding him of his military defeat. These issues have been discussed.
There is no evidence of an earlier deck than the CY, certainly none without the virtues - the onus is not on my "theory", which takes the CY evidence at face value. As for "originated in Anghiari" - not sure how you got that from me. Giusti is clear - he ordered a pair of triumph decks in Florence where they were being made. I presume, due to the timing, that the decks being made in Florence celebrated the triumph at Anghiari. The generic trump subjects don't celebrate anything specifically and the deck could be embellished with any ruler's stemmi and certain trumps (namely the chariot and world) modified to celebrate anything (if one wanted a deck to do that). Filelfo used Dante against the Medici regime and ultimately they embraced Dante; thus any cultural "commodity" is fair play. I see no problem in Visconti re-using something that originated in Florence against Florence (particularity if associated in luring away Florence's chief condottiero).
I have put in a late addition to my post, in brackets, that your view is that the tarot originated in Florence to celebrate their victory at Anghieri. I am sorry to have remembered it wrong. In addition, I want to say that my counter-argument to you was invalid. Filippo, even if he used a deck with exactly the same trumps as that made for Malatesta, would still be able to "improve" it, in that he could, and probably would, have changed the order of the trumps, especially the cardinal virtues, to what we see in the later Lombard order. On my side, a more appropriate argument would have been that since there were more cards per suit in the CY than in other triumph decks, probably there were more trumps as well.

But your reply, insisting that the CY and the "Anghieri" had the same trumps, leaves me puzzled in other respects. You began it by saying,
There is no evidence of an earlier deck than the CY, certainly none without the virtues. The onus is not on my "theory", which takes the CY evidence at face value." I question the relevance of the first sentence and the truth of the second.
On sentence 1: There is of course evidence of an earlier deck than the CY, namely the one for Malatesta (an example of what you call "the Anghieri deck", although more properly "the Anghieri-type"; so I will just address the question of the relevance of there being no evidence of a deck-type earlier than the CY without the virtues. Again, what you wrote is not entirely clear. I will assume that you meant that there is no evidence of a deck-type without the theological virtues earlier than the CY, since that is the only way the "Anghieri" type could have had the same trumps as the CY. But that there is no evidence of a deck-type without theological virtues that is earlier than the CY-type is just one piece of information, out of many others. Nothing follows from it, taken in isolation.

Sentence 2: you say the onus is not on your "'theory'" ("hypothesis" is a better word). Such a claim as that the game originated in 1440 Florence with the three theological virtues surely needs more evidence than the CY cards and that the seven virtues appeared as a unit in Florence's contribution to a parade and appeared together in public spaces of Florence. So displayed in Florence, the seven virtues were well enough known that it didn't take a game to inspire their use in a parade. In illuminated manuscripts, four is more ubiquitous than seven, owing to the rectangular shape of the paper. And the CY might have been an isolated experiment, given that nothing similar is known until Minchiate. I grant that it is reasonably possible that the deck for Malatesta did have the theological virtues, but the evidence is weak enough not to put the onus on others to prove otherwise. Without more evidence, the onus is not on any theory over any other.

An example where the onus would be on others is the identification of Paul Christian as the source for the Larousse 1898 definition of "esclave" in the context of the tarot, tied to the names "sceptre", "coupe", "glaive" and "sicle" (viewtopic.php?p=21310#p21310). While "jack" in English is related to "slave" in the Shakespearean sense of rascally person, that word wasn't applied to tarot cards, nor was the French "esclave", and there simply aren't any such designations of batons, swords, and coins before Christian, and plenty of examples to the contrary.

If someone wants to say that the combination of terms in Larousse 1898 didn't derive from him, the onus is definitely on them. The reason is not that nothing before him has such a combination of terms for playing cards, but that everything written before him, except Levi in 1860 (with "esclave" and "sceptre"), uses other terms entirely, and no reason to think that oral usage was any different. That is not true in the present case (of the tarot in 1440 Florence vs. c. 1442 Lombardy) because there aren't such previous sources either for or against the hypothesis (that Florentine decks had the three theological virtues). You might say, "well, there is the c. 1442 Cary-Yale, and no reason to think that the tarot was any different two years earlier in Florence." But that would be the wrong application of "if there is no reason to think otherwise". To apply to 1440 Florence, it can be used only to discount evidence in 1440 Florence. What you have is evidence that all seven virtues might reasonably have been present in 1440 Florence, and to that extent I do not disagree. It is evidence of a weak sort, reasonably compatible with other hypotheses.

In a sense there is evidence that the "Anghieri" deck did not have the same trumps as the CY of a sort, also weak, namely the numbers on the Charles VI, almost as valid as Lombardy 1442 because at least that deck is in the same place, Florence. When it was done is controversial, but not too far after 1442 to be irrelevant. There is also the fact that the four cardinal virtues were a unit of their own in Florence, as well as being joined with the theologicals, It is weak not only because of the time gap and your evidence (seven virtues in the Naples parade and the CY), but because there is also the Minchiate of that same city, which does have the three theologicals.

Again I conclude with "could have": without further evidence, the "Anghieri" could reasonably have had the same trumps as the CY; it also could have had a different number of trumps and even had a few different subjects. I say "reasonably" to say that there is some reason to suppose that a particular alternative is true. It is not like Russell's Teapot floating in outer space, which is logically possible but for which there is no reason to suppose its existence.

I only bring up these issues because they seem to be methodological in nature. But perhaps I have misunderstood something.

Re: What are the documents for Marziano's dates?

#89
mikeh wrote:
18 Nov 2019, 00:01
Filippo, even if he used a deck with exactly the same trumps as that made for Malatesta, would still be able to "improve" it, in that he could, and probably would, have changed the order of the trumps, especially the cardinal virtues, to what we see in the later Lombard order.
Not if the Lombard order didn't exist...because the 14 trump ur-tarot wasn't expanded into the 22 trump deck until the PMB of c. 1451. But you know that's my theory and I don't care to rehash that here. What interests me is your first statement, on whether the CY would have differed from what I presume to be a deck from the ur-series given to Malatesta.

My assumption for linking the ur-tarot and the CY is their presumed dates. Thus the prerequisite grounds for understanding the relationship of the Florentine ur-tarot to the CY is through whom and when did the ur-tarot make its way to Milan. Of course all we have at this point is the most likely scenario (e.g., it wouldn’t have been through the exiled Albizzi faction allied to Visconti). Given the tight relationship between Cosimo and Sforza and that Sforza was lured back into Visconti’s camp the following year after Anghiari (when I posit the ur-tarot was created, based on no earlier evidence than Giusti), I presume the agency was Sforza himself, or at least his envoys. If Malatesta was given a deck by a Medici partisan (Giusti), the overwhelming odds are that Sforza was given one as well, likely directly from a higher up (such as anyone on the Dieci, inclusive of Cosimo himself). And again, the laudatory poems after Anghiari in Florence celebrated “the men of Sforza” although the associated battle he won was at Soncino (duly celebrated in Florence, per Giusti). My answer then as to the question of what path tarot took to Milan (perhaps just a written summary of it such as Marcello's description of Marziano) is that it was received in Milan via the agency of Sforza.

When? Let’s turn to the only person connected to the ur-taort – Giusti – and fill in the timeline via his giornali, supplemented with other dates from Margaret King's 1994 work on Marcello:

16 September 1440: the well-known gifting of the tarot decks made in Florence from Giusti to Malatesta. What is less talked about is the context: Giusti has followed his client mercenaries to the Romagna, meeting up with the combined Papal-Florentine army, Pietro Giampaulo [Orsini, present at Anghiari] together constituting “the Holy League” along with Venice, and Malaesta’s men for an assault on the former Malatesta possession of Forli. This can only be viewed as a favor to Malatesta as a good faith effort in having gotten him back into the fold; Giusti’s gift necessarily seen in that context. (N. Newbigin, I Giornali Di Ser Giusto Giusti D’anghiari, 2002: 68)

9 and 12 October 1440, due to pressures from Visconti/Piccicino, the combined allied Lega/Malatesta army retires to the villages just outside Ravenna and at this time Giusti notes sforzeschi among the men at arms (ibid). But why Ravenna?

24 October, 1440 Marcello, assisted with Attendolo’s men (also at Anghiari) marches on Ravenna and deposes the ruling family aligned with the Visconti, the Polenta (see M. King, 252-53). [and see my separate Ancona arch post regarding the CY "world" - why a view from Cremona looking at the Adriatic sea with Ravenna on the coast, recently lost from Visconti, would be depicted in a Milanese deck in 1441 given to a condottiero on whom hopes for regaining such lost possessions someday would be pinned]

December 1440 through February 1441 Sforza is in Venice to ride our winter and attend the Foscari-Contarini wedding.

6 July 1441 Sforza is at the Adige River, perhaps near Verona (King, 254; Marcello was also sent by Venice to keep an eye on him) but this must have been to meet with Milanese envoys in what ultimately lead to the renewed condotte and wedding to Bianca some four months later, in late October 1441).

August 12, 1441 Giusti is still with Malatesta in Rimini where he reports that ‘Gismondo had returned from Lombardy that day and married Sforza's daughter. (Newbigin, 69)

August 16 1441, Giusti leaves Rimini for Florence (machine translation here): “because I had to leave, and the magnificent Signor Gismondo committed some of his secret things to me that I was to look after in Florence with Cosimo and with others.” (ibid)

August 17 1441 Giusti “went to see Cosimo at Careggi [Villa], on an embassy commissioned by Signor ‘Gismondo and reasoned about our facts, of which he [Cosimo] replied he was happy.” (ibid)

21-31 August 1441, King cryptically notes “at his palace in Venice, Sforza discusses maters of state” (249). Clearly this was related to the ensuing Treaty of Cavriana (between Milan and Papacy/Florence/Venice and less powerful allies).

24-28 October 1441. Sforza/Bianca wedding,

20 November 1441. Treaty of Cavriana.

We thus have a time period from when Sforza approached Lombardy at the Adige in July and the wedding events of 24-28 October. So the maximum amount of time for the CY to be created would have been four months; likely less than three if the details of the treaty were only agreed to in August. I don't see enough time for innovation and moreover I don't see what Visconti's objections would be to any of the trumps, especially when the key ones indicating rulership - the chariot and "world" - could be easily modified to suit his interests at that time.

But look at what has transpired in the interim: Sforza has lent arms to Malatesta as part of the Holy League’s actions to pry Forli (unsuccessful) and Ravenna (successful) away from Visconti. Sforza soon after had gotten Malatesta to marry his daughter (why Malatesta visited “Lombardy” for that is interesting if unexplained detail – did Visconti have to offer no objection as part of the treaty?). Tarot cards appear for the first time ever in this context of intense Sforza-Malatesta dealings. Moreover, 11 months after Giusti’s gift of tarot to Malatesta, Giusti is personally meeting with Cosimo de Medici as Malatesta’s envoy for a secret matter he won’t even explain in his journal (approving of the marriage to Sforza's daughter or just the selling off of minor Malatesta fiefs in Tuscany? We don't know). I should also point out I did not include any of the incidences of direct involvement between Giusti and other members of the Florentine Dieci, especially Neri Capponi, one of the heroes of Anghiari (they even met to divide up spoils after that campaign). Given all of that, I ask these questions:

1. Given the relationship of Cosimo to Malatesta (they stood together at the altar during the Duomo's consecration in 1435), did Giusti really just act on his own with no thought of Florence’s and the Holy League’s relationship to Malatesta…or was Giusti acting strictly as an agent of the Medici party? Call him a double-agent if you must, as his interests were equally with procuring military contracts with Malatesta (but note that later on Giusti turns down Malatetsa when he is offered being his chancellor because he wishes to stay in Anghiari/Florence).

2. Did allied Sforza, clearly the most powerful condottiero esteemed by Cosimo, not receive his own tarot deck following the victory at Anghiari? The presumption of point number one is that Giusti acted with Cosimo’s tacit approval if not explicit direction, and Cosimo would have certainly flattered Sforza as much if not more than Malatesta.

3. Is it just a timing coincidence that Giusti gave the tarot deck to Malatesta once the Holy League army arrived en masse at Cesena (from where they staged their campaign against Forli)? Or did that tarot deck only arrive with the Florentine contingent at that time (if Giusti already had it why didn’t he give it to Malatesta earlier since he arrived well before the army of the League?)?

Sforza’s own chancellery obviously had intense negotiations with Visconti in 1441 in order to broker the Treaty of Cavriana and marriage with Bianca. Sforza was on the Lombard border in July 1441, which would be the most likely time envoys from Milan would have seen the general showing off his cards in camp. I presume Visconti, a card aficionado ever since Marziano, got wind of the deck, perhaps even procured a different deck from Florence (a standard one without Sforza’s arms) and had one commissioned to celebrate his coup in securing Sforza away from the League in October of 1441 via his marrying off of Bianca.

Finally, pointing vaguely at the CVI or Minchiate while leveling objections against my theory as somehow discounting evidence in c.1440 Florence, when in fact I have provided granular detail, is beyond the pale, especially in light of your farcical dating of the CVI. But I'm happy to discuss any of the above in greater detail.

Phaeded

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Phaeded and 9 guests

cron