Re: Marziano deck in the context of the moralizing Ovid genr

11
Huck wrote: What precisely do you want to state with Nr. 2?
What I've stated ad nauseam - the consensus regarding the PMB (Dummett, et al) is that the PMB is a standard 22 trump tarot deck, painted by two different hands (either at the same time, because the first artist was running behind [we have written demands from Sforza for tarot cards to be delivered quickly], or as replacements for cards worn from play).

Moreover, the 16(? two are missing so may actually be 18) trumps should have included Fortitude, Temperance, and Prudence-regno-World/domain given the presence of Justice in this artist's hand, but they don't. I know you have tangential reasons for why Justice stands alone - in spite of the fact that every complete tarot deck has all the cardinals - but spare me those reasons again. Please. There is every reason to think an ur-tarot in Florence would have featured the 7 virtues. The papally-aligned theologicals do get replaced, but that has nothing to do with cardinal virtues supposedly missing from a tarot deck.

Phaeded

Re: Marziano deck in the context of the moralizing Ovid genr

12
I wrote
I have indeed wondered about the commentaries that went with the moralizations, whether there might be something of interest there to us. Even more, I've wondered about the commentaries on Petrarch and Boccaccio. If you know of any that are accessible, such as Filelfo's, I would also be all ears.
Checking my sources, I see that I misremembered Filelfo's commentary, which is on the Canzone and Sonetti and not the Trionfi, as Phaeded observes.

For the commentaries that really are on the Trionfi, all the ones I had read about were from the 1470s-1490s. However they might be worth checking to see if they have any information about the game. There are:

1. Bernardo Lapini di Monte Ilicino, Gli sonetti, canzone e Triumphi del Petrarca, col commento, first ed. 1475 Bologna, in many manuscripts and probably print editions.
2. Antonio da Tempo, Comento sopra i Sonetti, Canzone, e Trionfi del Petrarca, Venezia 1477.
3. Jacopo di Poggio di Bracciolini, Commento sopra el Triompho della Fama, 1485.
4. Niccolo Paranzone, Opera di preclarissimo Francesco Petrarca con li comenti sopra i Trionfi, Sonetti, e canzone. 1508 Venezia, 1st ed. 1494. Seems to be a print edition.
5. a poem by an Alberto Orlando, Canzone sopra i Trionfi del Petrarca. In U. Capuis, ed., Canzone di Alberto Orlando da Fabriano per dichiarare i Trionfi di Francesco Petrarca , Livorno 1874. I find it mentioned (by Pelegrin, p. 310 of her book on Petrarch mss. in France) first in a 15th century ms. of the Trionfi, so it is early. Aded later: it's 1453, per http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/mar ... ografico)/.

There are various references to these works on the web; I am not clear where the texts can be found for study, except for the Bracciolini. There are two copies in Chicago, one at the Newberry Library minus its preface, and another, complete, at the University of Chicago. These are the only ones listed for the U.S (by Ullman, but I see that there are microfilm copies and other editions elsewhere in the US). This Bracciolini is the son of the famous one; he was hung in the wake of the Pazzi conspiracy, 1478 (http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/iacopo-bracciolini/). I could not find out information about the lives of the other people.

Phaeded wrote,
What I've demonstrated is there is no link between Petrarch and Marziano,...
Nobody ever said there was. Fitting the pieces of the puzzle together in ways that nobody ever fit them and then refuting your straw man is not helpful. 16 fits with the CY via the Marziano and the idea of same number of trumps as suit cards in the tarot (we don't know about Marziano here, but it is possible), a hypothesis that seems to have some support (not proof) in regard to the number 14 and works well as a reconstruction of the deck. Petrarch fits with the CY in virtue of the subjects--albeit shown in a chivalric and not Petrarchan way--on extant cards: Love (as in "Amor" on the tent), Chastity, Death, Fame, Eternity. Petrarch does not in this hypothetical scenario fit with Marziano.

Then somehow you conclude:
1. Marziano - already ruled out as unrelated to the tarot trumps and presumably unknown in Florence.
Ruled out in relation to Petrarch, yes, but so what? It is the structure that is important, the 16 allegorical triumphal figures overlaid on 4 suits (hypothesized but reasonable in the case of the CY), with suggestions from Yale of a 4x4 grid. Dismissing inconclusive evidence does not make it go away as evidence. As far as the Marziano being unknown in Florence, that doesn't matter. The CY is in Milan. The minchiate, which is what Pratesi related to the number 16 and the CY, is in Florence. The postulated 16 trump tarot (not Marziano) is what links Milan and Florence, reflected in the CY and minchiate, Marziano being a possible ancestor or parallel development to both types.

Added later same day: I corrected some bibliographic information on the five works commenting on the Trionfi.

Re: Marziano deck in the context of the moralizing Ovid genr

13
mikeh wrote: 1. Bernardo Lapini di Monte Ilicino, Gli sonetti, canzone e Triumphi del Petrarca, col commento, first ed. 1475 Bologna, in many manuscripts and probably print editions.
Lapini's commentaries, first printed edition was in 1475, however it was also produced in manuscript (there are 9 manuscripts still extent), and likely it was in luxurious and illustrated manuscript form that it was presented to the Duke of Modena, Borsa d'Este, to whom it was dedicated, giving a terminus of 1471*. The commentary includes reference to the death of the Duke of Milan, and it also contains some literal references that rely on an Italian translation of Bruni which make it post 1466. Lapini was in Ferrara from 1469*, he is included among of list of masters ennobled or knighted by the Emperor Frederick III in February that year in Ferrara, to whose entourage Boiardo was assigned during his visit.

There is a pdf with text version of a 1478 edition here:

https://archive.org/details/ita-bnc-in2-00001926-001

(118.1m)

There is also a text version there, but it is a complete mess.

Re: Marziano deck in the context of the moralizing Ovid genr

14
For the commentaries that really are on the Trionfi, all the ones I had read about were from the 1470s-1490s. However they might be worth checking to see if they have any information about the game. There are:

1. Bernardo Lapini di Monte Ilicino, Gli sonetti, canzone e Triumphi del Petrarca, col commento, first ed. 1475 Bologna, in many manuscripts and probably print editions.
2. Antonio da Tempo, Comento sopra i Sonetti, Canzone, e Trionfi del Petrarca, Venezia 1477.
3. Jacopo di Poggio di Bracciolini, Commento sopra el Triompho della Fama, 1485.
4. Niccolo Paranzone, Opera di preclarissimo Francesco Petrarca con li comenti sopra i Trionfi, Sonetti, e canzone. 1508 Venezia, 1st ed. 1494. Seems to be a print edition.
5. a poem by an Alberto Orlando, Canzone sopra i Trionfi del Petrarca. In U. Capuis, ed., Canzone di Alberto Orlando da Fabriano per dichiarare i Trionfi di Francesco Petrarca , Livorno 1874. I find it mentioned (by Pelegrin, p. 310 of her book on Petrarch mss. in France) first in a 15th century ms. of the Trionfi, so it is early.
You forgot the possibly most important of them, the father of Bernardo Lapini.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=489&hilit=salimbeni
You've to read through the full text, cause at the begin I'ds ome errors, which were cured during the development of the text.

Pietro Lapini di Montalcino. He got the commission of Filippo Maria to work on the text.
The first complete commentary to the Canzoniere is now lost. It was compiled in 1443 by Pietro Lapini da Montalcino for Francesco Maria Visconti, and apparently argued for an allegorical interpretation of Laura. The most important 15th-c. commentary followed in 1444–7, again compiled for the same Visconti; it is by Francesco Filelfo , who has doubts about the acceptability of love as the major theme, and covers only poems 1–135, discussing linguistic difficulties, classical sources, and poetic technique, though he recognizes only sonnets and canzoni, and treats the overall structure of the collection as arbitrary.
http://www.jrank.org/literature/pages/1 ... aries.html
The following I found to the father of Illicino, Pietro Lapini da Montalcino:
Pietro Lapini da Montalcino era stato medico dell’anti-papa Giovanni XXIII, ossia del cardinale Cossa, ma deposto dal Concilio di Costanza nel 1415. Due anni dopo il Lapini si spostò al servizio di Filippo Maria, per il quale svolse missioni diplomatiche, ma per lo più rimase a Pavia dove insegnò nel locale Studio.
http://www.storiadimilano.it/Personaggi ... omaria.htm

Lapini had been the physician of the Anti-Pope John XXIII, who was abdicated in 1415 in Constance. After two years (should be 1417) Lapini appears in the service of Filippo Maria Visconti, by whom he is used for diplomatic missions (likely he had been till this time in Constance ?). After some time he appears as a teacher (likely for medical science ?) in Pavia in the "local studio" ...(= university ?).
Marziano (da Tortona) morì nel
1425, lasciando il suo pupillo a Pietro Lapini da Montalcino,
che era stato medico dell’anti-papa Giovanni XXIII, e che per
Filippo Maria svolse anche missioni diplomatiche, insegnando
a Pavia.
http://www.lauramalinverni.net/sforza.pdf

When Marziano da Tortona died 1425, he left his "fosterling? fosterlings? nurse childs? pupils?" to Lapini ... the meaning of the sentence is not clear to me. Either Lapini got the charge of children of Martiano da Tortona himself, or Tortona had build a similar institution as Vittorio da Feltre in Mantova educating pupils in Pavia, or what?
This matter is rather important for Tarot History, as it indicates a strong relation between Martiano da Tortona and Lapini in the time of Martiano's death, and that's the probable time, when Martiano wrote his treatise, which one might call "the first Tarot book" - some years ago translated by Ross Caldwell ...

http://trionfi.com/0/b/11/
I remember dark to have read, that Bernardo, the son, had material for his Trionfi commentary, which he had gotten from his father. Pietro Lapini died soon (late 1440s), perhaps with works, which never were finished.

I got the suspicion, that Pietro Lapini was the hidden author "Gentile Sermini" (probably a pseudonym; whose collection of stories contained the story of "Anselmo Salimbeni", which with the son Bernardo later became famous with ... before the more famous Trionfi commentary).
Sermini fled from Siena during a plague 1424 and went to the mountains, where he wrote the stories about people in Siena. That all had some context to a church meeting (council of Siena), where probably also Pietro Lapini was. The same church meeting had been before at Pavia, from which it had moved to Siena.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Siena
According to the terms of the Council of Constance calling for periodic ecumenical councils to discuss church policies, Pope Martin V convened a council at Pavia, which was hardly inaugurated on 23 April 1423, when plague broke out at Pavia and the council was hastily adjourned to Siena.
So Filippo Maria was host to this council, as a project. Pietro Lapini was his best man for diplomatic missions, especially for matters of the church, cause he had been physician of pope John XXIII. in Constance, before he went to the service of Filippo Maria.
It seems plausible, that Lapini also went to Siena. When the plague arrived also in Siena, Lapini knew, where he could flee to, cause he came from Montalcino (near Siena, in the mountains).
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Marziano deck in the context of the moralizing Ovid genr

15
Thanks for the link, Steve. I saw it on WorldCat, but then couldn't get to the page. It said I had to join something, or go through my library. The "Commento" seems to be just a life of Petrarch, I think the usual story about Laura being a real person who died. Unfortunately the last printed page is missing, where one would expect the author's name. There is just something handwritten, and no author's name that I see, at least nothing resembling Lapini's various names. The text is odd, in that there is no title page, introduction, nor even a title saying "Canzioni" or "Sonetti". The Triumphi start unannounced (except for a "finis" of the "carmine" on the previous page) on p. 262. For the triumph of Love, only part III has a title, and it says, erroneously, "Capit. II". Then it gets the next one, "Capit. IIII", right. For the Triumph of Chastity, there is a one page part II, missing from the online version at http://petrarch.petersadlon.com/read_tr ... age=II.txt. Then it mislabels Part III of the triumph of fame as IIII. At the end of the Triumphs it gives the date, in Roman numerals, as 1473. (Although the book seems to be a reprint of 1656, according to the date on the bizarrely comical printer's illustrations at the end.) Then there is a "Memorabilia" section in Latin (p. 332 of pdf), followed by a fragment of a letter by Petrarch, also in Latin, and then what seems to be the biographical sketch, no author given. At the end, before the printer's illustrations, there seems to be, in handwriting, the end of the biography and a short thing in Latin that looks like an epitaph (I think I see "lapis" rather than "Lapini"). Oh, well.

Thanks for all the information about Bernardo Lapini etc., Huck. That was an impressive piece of detective work about someone well connected to the milieu of the tarot.

Re: Marziano deck in the context of the moralizing Ovid genr

16
mikeh wrote: Thanks for all the information about Bernardo Lapini etc., Huck. That was an impressive piece of detective work about someone well connected to the milieu of the tarot.
Well, if you mean the case of Pietro Lapini and Gentile Sermini ... Sermini had 40 stories, somehow in the "Framed story category" and I suspected, that this possibly was connected to the 4x10-number cards. And there was this close connection to Martiano da Tortona, who (possibly) in the same time (1424) had arranged something with cards and Bernardo - with great success - expanded the Anselmo Salimbeni story. Logically, if he got the material from his father, he understood himself as the heir of this material.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Marziano deck in the context of the moralizing Ovid genr

17
Phaeded wrote:
Huck wrote: What precisely do you want to state with Nr. 2?
What I've stated ad nauseam - the consensus regarding the PMB (Dummett, et al) is that the PMB is a standard 22 trump tarot deck, painted by two different hands (either at the same time, because the first artist was running behind [we have written demands from Sforza for tarot cards to be delivered quickly], or as replacements for cards worn from play).

Moreover, the 16(? two are missing so may actually be 18) trumps should have included Fortitude, Temperance, and Prudence-regno-World/domain given the presence of Justice in this artist's hand, but they don't. I know you have tangential reasons for why Justice stands alone - in spite of the fact that every complete tarot deck has all the cardinals - but spare me those reasons again. Please. There is every reason to think an ur-tarot in Florence would have featured the 7 virtues. The papally-aligned theologicals do get replaced, but that has nothing to do with cardinal virtues supposedly missing from a tarot deck.

Phaeded
"Moreover, the 16(? two are missing so may actually be 18)" ... likely you mean 14 or 16, more is not possible or artist 1 must steal from artist 2.

"There is every reason to think an ur-tarot in Florence would have featured the 7 virtues." I don't mind theories about an "ur-tarot of Florence", but my ideas about possibly relevant trump motifs in this situation would be higher than 97. For instance the sybils of various nations or a list of successful Florentine condottieri or the heraldry of Florentine guilds.
Looking at the "decks, from which we definitely know that they once existed by physical presence" one definitely wouldn't have concluded on "16 Roman gods", as it is given by the Michelino deck texts.
That's the situation: Too much possibilities. A Dante version of Trionfi cards? Why not, that's one of these many possibilities.

Still I don't understand your point Nr. 2:
"2. The PMB trumps in the hand of one artist - the proposal that part of the PMB is a complete deck, with trumps that match no other known complete tarot deck, is ludicrous. This is a beyond a 'fringe' idea - no one has seriously proposed it in a publication."
... .-) ... It seems to say, that you think, that the 5x14-theory is ludicrous. If you really meant this, I must have taken once your position wrong ... my memory was too weak in this point. You're right with this, it was your position from beginning on ...
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=888&p=12968#p12968

Good, that I noted this now, better late than never. So thank you. Also good, that we have the past in written form, so that one can get to the bottom of the developments.

The second part of your statement Nr. 2 is definitely wrong. At least me has seriously proposed the case of the 5x14-theory since 2003. If you don't consider these statements as "publication" or not, well, that's your evaluation of reality, not mine.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Marziano deck in the context of the moralizing Ovid genr

18
I think by "published" Phaeded probably means print publication. That way his Dante theory about the PMB can count as fitting into the "published" category, because the unfinished notes of someone working on a Dante theory were once published, even though it bore no other resemblance to what Phaeded proposes.

I have some comments that probably should go in the "methodology" thread, but are mostly relevant here.

I don't agree with Huck's 5x14 theory for the PMB, but I don't find it ludicrous. I am not sure that even Huck agrees with his theory, in the sense of holding it to be true. I know I don't agree with my theories; I don't disagree either. They are hypotheses I find worthy of consideration and further research and effort. I don't find his 5x14 idea for the PMB as strongly supported as I do some other ideas not fully confirmed by evidence (e.g. the influence of Petrarch's I Trionfi). But even if I found his idea ludicrous, that is no argument against it. Many correct ideas are first found ludicrous. The nice thing about the Internet is that we can propose new ideas without going to the expense of publishing a book or having to get the approval of some authority in charge of a journal. Of course there is the danger that we will be flooded with new ideas, but fortunately there aren't that many, in this field. If we don't find an idea of any merit, we can always just ignore it; meanwhile it stays there for us to return to if need be. Otherwise, they are there to remind us of the uncertainty of our conclusions. Yes, there is the danger that people will cling to their bad idea in the face of clear evidence to the contrary and act in an obstructive way. But that does not seem to be the case about Huck, in the face of evidence; for example, he had no problem discarding the idea that the contract in 1477 Bologna implied a 5x14 triumph deck. It also does not seem to me that the evidence for a 22 card PMB is that clear cut; if it is, then it is better to argue in those terms, as you also do, with some merit, but not sufficient to support the presence of all 22. By that I mean you argue (I think) for the implausibility of the Justice card being really Fame, especially in the face of other early decks with a card otherwise similar and with Fortitude and Temperance, and a tradition where such virtues do not usually appear singly; but that could only justify 2 more cards, not 8. And even the alleged implausibility is not that implausible. Justice frequently appears without the others, in front of buildings, for example, and the man on horseback on the PMB card is surely meant to be Justice's hero.

In any case, arguing from consensus only weakens your position rather than strengthening it. What I liked about Pratesi's recent survey of perspectives in his "earliest triumphs" note is that he explored a variety of hypotheses, without coming down definitely in favor of any.

Re: Marziano deck in the context of the moralizing Ovid genr

19
Huck wrote:
Still I don't understand your point Nr. 2:
"2. The PMB trumps in the hand of one artist - the proposal that part of the PMB is a complete deck, with trumps that match no other known complete tarot deck, is ludicrous. This is a beyond a 'fringe' idea - no one has seriously proposed it in a publication."
... .-) ... It seems to say, that you think, that the 5x14-theory is ludicrous. If you really meant this, I must have taken once your position wrong ... my memory was too weak in this point. You're right with this, it was your position from beginning on ...
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=888&p=12968#p12968
Huck,
You know full well my interpretation of the evidence is an ur-tarot in Florence of 7 virtues with 7 exemplars, to which 7 gets added in the PMB (+ fool).

To reiterate my objection to your theory: the specific trumps of the PMB in one artist's hand do not match the trumps of any surviving complete tarot deck. That the PMB was done in two phases, with the first phase constituting a complete and unique trump series, is a leap of faith most of us won't make.
Mikeh wrote:
16 fits with the CY via the Marziano and the idea of same number of trumps as suit cards in the tarot
The CY and PMB are 'genetically' related; the Marziano is merely from that court but represents a different cultural project. But again, the PMB did not bother to match the trump suit to the other four suit's number of cards, so why should the CY have done so?

Yes, Marziano is from the same ducal court which allows some internal influence, and to that fact I've proposed the number 16 was retained in the "courting" court cards of the CY, because of the Love/marriage theme. The only mythical god present in both the Visconti-Sforza tarot and the Marziano deck is Cupid, and again, the only Florentine hand-painted exemplar we have shows Love with 3 couples, which is what is represented in the CY court cards - 3 men for 3 women. 'Love', on the other hand, does not demand 16 trumps. There is a thematic unity of the Love trump and the CY court cards, split as they are between two families' arms, engaged in a marriage: courting (and medieval romances are still very much at the heart of ducal Milan, as testified to the Apollo-Daphne theme in the Marziano).

Perhaps I've placed too much of an emphasis on 'early adopter' Ferrara and the very suggestive evidence there on 1/1/1441 of 14 painted 'figures' - but I'm still waiting for just one suggestion of what those 14 images could be if not tarot....that could be enjoyed as entertainment ('to make festive with'). And unlike 16, 14 is attested for at the right time and in one of the right places. And it wasn't the 14 stages of the Cross (as January 1 was the Feast of the Circumcision of Christ, not Easter); so - why 14 'figures'?

Phaeded

Re: Marziano deck in the context of the moralizing Ovid genr

20
Phaeded wrote: Huck,
You know full well my interpretation of the evidence is an ur-tarot in Florence of 7 virtues with 7 exemplars, to which 7 gets added in the PMB (+ fool).
I remember, that I've occasionally suggested, that you open a thread, where you present your theory in a clear manner. Easy to find.
To reiterate my objection to your theory: the specific trumps of the PMB in one artist's hand do not match the trumps of any surviving complete tarot deck. That the PMB was done in two phases, with the first phase constituting a complete and unique trump series, is a leap of faith most of us won't make.
I think, you got the info (from Adrian Goldwetter) about serious differences between the 6 and the 14 trumps. Beside the style differences there are differences in the production method, which caused a remarkable different weight of single cards from the both groups. Did you get this detail?

...
The CY and PMB are 'genetically' related; the Marziano is merely from that court but represents a different cultural project. But again, the PMB did not bother to match the trump suit to the other four suit's number of cards, so why should the CY have done so?
"But again, the PMB did not bother to match the trump suit to the other four suit's number of cards, so why should the CY have done so? "
You argument with something, as if it is proven, but it isn't proven, and at least exist theories, that it was quite different. It is a common feature of playing card decks, that different suits had the same number of cards. This rule was broken in the development with the game structures of Tarot and Minchiate (which we all know, 4x14+22 and 4x14 + 41) and our special interest is the way, how this happened. What shall your argument count for?
Huck
http://trionfi.com