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

#231
Huck wrote:
06 Apr 2020, 03:20

Although the six god pairs of the year 217 BC are similar to the 6 pairs of Manilius (from c 18 AD; only 4 pairs are identical), they are not the same ... and they don't have a relation to the zodiac or don't show a relation to astrology/astronomy according Livius.
Image
The 6 pairs of Livius lead also not to new insights in the Visconti order.
Livy is sufficient explanation in my opinion because Decembrio singles this author out of all the ancient authors as Filippo Maria's favorite. The dii consentes also makes superfluous the question of whether they conceived of the "Twelve Olympians." There was no need, these gods are named as such in Livy and Apuleius, easily available Latin authors.

There is no need to bring Manilius into it, or the zodiac. Start with the text, look for the closest source; these twleve are found in Livy, and only Bacchus replacing Vulcan has to be explained.

Marziano mentions Virgil by name, so we don't even have to ask what his influence was - it was vast and profound. It can be assumed, for any interpretation.

Phaeded has a made a very good case, as far as I have thought about it, for the final four being Aeneid-Petrarchan influenced, this latter author's Canzoniere being another explicit favorite of Filippo Maria's.
Image

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

#232
For Marziano's age, the only fixed point we have is the birth year of his nephew, Enrico Rampini, who died on 4 July 1450, and his tombstone explicitly says he had "sexaginta" years. So he was born sometime between 5 July 1389 and 4 July 1390.

Enrico's father was Francesco Rampini. Francesco was Marziano's younger brother. Enrico in turn was Francesco's second son, the first being Urbano. Marziano and Francesco were sons of Giovanni (or Giovanino), who is listed in 1380 as the fourth of five Rampinis, probably brothers, of the late Rufino. Rufino in turn was the son of Giovanni, who was the son of the late Giglio. Giovanni is cited as such in a legal document of 1309. From this the descent can be drawn up (see the visual depiction in this post on this thread viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1422&start=30#p21240 )

Giglio -
Giovanni I (1309 adult)
Rufino
Giovanni II (1380 adult)
Marziano (firstborn) Francesco (second)
Urbano - Enrico (born 1389-1390)

So we have to guess how old Giovanni II was when he fathered these sons, working backwards from Enrico's year 1389-90 and forward from Giovanni II being adult enough to be party to a renewal of a feudal contract in 1380.

Urbano"s birth year can be put no later than 1387-88. We should put his father Francesco's marriage then at no later than 1385-6. If he had a profession, such as notary, he should have been no younger than 25 when he got married, in order to be able to provide for a family, since the feudal possession itself couldn't guarantee them a life of leisure (Giovanni I was a notary, so this profession may have run in the family, and Marziano himself was notary to Gregory XII, so this was one of his degrees at least).

We can safely put Francesco's birth year as 1360 then. Marziano being older, we can put him safely one or two years earlier.

This dating has the elegance of rationally splitting the difference between the bold "1350" of the Sardigliano paper, cited on the genealogy post above, and "1370" of Ugo Rozzo. 1370 certainly seems too late to conveniently place Francesco and son Urbano; Francesco would have had to be no more than 16 or 17 when he fathered Urbano, which is uncharacteristic of a middle-class family ("noble" of such families is used in the sense of being prominent and ancient Tortonese landowners and feudatories, as well as having a legal coat of arms).

Healthy breathing room is given by assuming an average age of 25 for marriage and beginning a family.

So I am comfortable that giving "circa 1360" as Marziano's birth year is not unreasonable. He thus lived to about 65 years of age.
Image

Re: Filipo Maria Visconti - A Child of Saturn

#233
SteveM wrote:
06 Apr 2020, 00:44
Perhaps OT: In the Semideus, presented to Filippo Maria Visconti in 1438, the author writes that just as the Virgin Mary was the 60th generation from Adam, so FMV was the 60th generation from Saturn: it is illustrated by a family tree, with Saturn at the root and FMV at the top. This is the mythological Saturn of course, not the planetary one - but perhaps they may have been conflated in FMVs mind... the return of the Golden Age, the Age of Saturn - was a propaganda theme used by other rulers of the time, such as the d'Este for example, and was perhaps a theme he was attracted to given his interest in astrology and the position of Saturn in his chart.
How am I not familiar with that work? Thanks Steve - that's a damn good "off topic" subject.

Here's a link to several color reproductions from that work: http://benedante.blogspot.com/2018/07/t ... ideus.html

Apparently it was done in light of the incursions of the Turks, inspiring Visconti to a would-be crusade. A few Google pages from a work that discuses it here:
Christopher de Hamel, Meetings with Remarkable Manuscripts: T ... eval World, 2016.

https://books.google.com/books?id=1OW2D ... 38&f=false


Steve's suggestion of linking Saturn to the Golden Age is reflected in this fairly recent (and excellent) work on that subject, but critically links Mary and Saturn in light of Virgil's Fourth Eclogue (available in JSTOR): L.B.T. Houghton, "VIRGIL'S FOURTH ECLOGUE AND THE VISUAL ARTS "(Papers of the British School at Rome, Vol. 83 (2015), pp. 175-220).

Finally, I've long suspected the Sforza variation of the biscione - a human-headed curled-up dragon holding a ring is related to Saturn but without any evidence. But note Saturn is described by all the medieval mythographers as holding a snake biting its own tail, so "circular" (depicted in the hands of Saturn in the frescoes in Angera) and that in the De sphera 'frontispage 'below the dragon's neck and arms form a circle, mimicking the ring it holds (also note 6 circles on the wings which make the ring #7 - the number of planetary Saturn). The old grey bearded head would be Saturn himself (but given Muzio was given that ring does that somehow reference him in addition to the Visconti Semideus?).

Image

The title page from Semideus:
Image

A paining contemporary to Semideus also related to the Fourth Eclogue and Saturn - also brought to our notice by Steve - discussed here (dal Ponte, c. 1434):
viewtopic.php?t=1005&start=40

Image


Finally, getting back "on topic" - Saturn is not in Marziano. Was this later work then somehow "supplemental" to the DSH?

Phaeded

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

#234
Phaeded wrote:
06 Apr 2020, 00:15
I view that a little differently - Beatrice was a mistake, and if not a damnatio memoriae at least a demonization of sorts was in order, thus the comparison with Dido. So on the flip side of that argument, would they have done that pre-1418?[/quote

But I'll insist on that [Titus' magic spell] less than 1418. ;-)
Well, if you push in that direction, I'll have to push in the other, although I remain open minded for solid evidence that would exclude 1412.

As you have reminded us, Dido is not mentioned in DSH, it's only our interpretation that her presence is lurking in the background at all. And from there it is another interpretative step to Beatrice. This is a very weak basis upon which to assert any intention of demonization of Beatrice, let alone her memory after a scandalous and controversial end. And this doesn't even address the presumption of motive for such an intention, not only on Filippo Maria's part, but on Marziano's. The balloon (theory) has become untethered to the ground (facts) long before now.

If there is a personal moral message (and not just a general one), the admonitions against luxury and wealth are explicit and far more prevalent - whole suits are named for them. And such a message is consistent with a youth suddenly flush with unimaginable riches and power. There is no reason to suspect that Beatrice personally was dangerous - like Dido for Aeneas - only that the riches he gained, incidentally by marriage, would corrupt him. In the matter of heritage, Filippo Maria was free, like his father and any other ruler of the time, to legitimize a bastard if he wished; The marriage to Beatrice was not for diplomatic reasons, where his offspring being HER child was crucial to keeping the peace. We see his attitude displayed openly in 1429, when he mentions his mistress beside his wife of less than a year, the only difference being that Agnese had to produce a male for it to be valid, whereas if Maria produced any child at all, male or female, it would take precedence.

So Beatrice was not dangerous, but Aeolus does represent the turbo that has the power to drive him off-course from his destiny. But Beatrice herself is not the danger - her wealth - now his - is.


As another argument for 1412, here is some absence of evidence that might be indicative. Namely, Marziano's curious omission of standard card playing terms. By contrast, Filippo Maria himself in 1420 uses "signum" for suit, and "figura" for the court cards. But Marziano only uses "ordo" for everything - suits, kings, heroes. Ordo has never been a card playing term, at least that I know of.

nec ad aliquem ludum carteselarum nisi dumtaxat secundum antiquum et rectum modum, videlicet iactando foras figuras et alia signa pro tali signo et tali figura, nominando enses vel bachulos et tale signum contra tale signum
(from Caterina Santoro, ed. I Registri dell'Ufficio di Provvisione (Milan, 1929) p. 560, n. 40)
See also this post - viewtopic.php?f=12&t=334&p=5187&hilit=foras#p5187

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1358&p=20606&hilit=figura#p20606

Schreiber famously rejected that Decembrio was describing a card game at all in chapter LXI, on the basis that the terms ludus triumphorum, cartae, etc. were well known by the late 1440s, and Decembrio used a weird circumlocution (I interpret this as his fanatical Ciceronianism, rejecting any rude neologisms like "ludus cartarum.").

Can we attribute a similar puritan Latinism to Marziano? I am not competent to say. But I'm willing to propose, until shown otherwise, that he might have been ignorant of card playing terms in Latin, if all he knew were common games in the vernacular, as Filippo Maria must have known them.
Image

Re: Filipo Maria Visconti - A Child of Saturn

#236
Phaeded wrote:
06 Apr 2020, 15:28

Finally, getting back "on topic" - Saturn is not in Marziano. Was this later work then somehow "supplemental" to the DSH?
He is not one of the heroes - no Titan or older god is, nor underworld gods like Pluto or Vulcan - but he IS mentioned as Juno's father. So he is "in" Marziano, if you like.

As we are seeing, even allusive references are indicative of purpose. He didn't have to say that Juno was fathered by Saturn (Jove was too, but he doesn't mention that).
Image

Re: Filipo Maria Visconti - A Child of Saturn

#237
Phaeded wrote:
06 Apr 2020, 15:28
But note Saturn is described by all the medieval mythographers as holding a snake biting its own tail, so "circular" (depicted in the hands of Saturn in the frescoes in Angera) and that in the De sphera 'frontispage 'below the dragon's neck and arms form a circle, mimicking the ring it holds (also note 6 circles on the wings which make the ring #7 - the number of planetary Saturn).
What system are you referring to for Saturn as 7? I always understand him as 3, i.e.

1 Primum Mobile
2 Sphera Stellarum
3 Saturn
4 Jupiter
5 Mars
6 Sun
7 Venus
8 Mercury
9 Moon
Image

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

#238
Phaeded wrote:
05 Apr 2020, 20:12

My primary argument for Beatrice, the unsuitable widow , is that she parallels Dido in that regard - a dalliance for Aeneas (the grandfather of Anglus "Visconti"), that was but a distraction from his true destiny, which is what Beatrice would be for Filippo (whether or not he had moved on to someone else or not; e.g. Agnese).
I would say you've helped me clarify my thoughts on this, in a few posts above.

It is not Beatrice that is the distraction, and no one ever thought so. It is HER MONEY (etc.). Insofar as the symbolism of the deck has a message, this is it.

Aeolus must represent the irresistible forces that drove him to marry her, but that's where the analogy ends. Unlike with Dido and Aeneas, there is no love between them, and no chance that she personally could have derailed his destiny. But his sudden change of fortune could well do so. He could wallow in luxury, in vice, in giving away money and position to flatterers, etc.

I am persuaded that both Marziano and Filippo Maria were well enough versed in the Aeneid to see the simple parallel with Aeneas/Dido and Filippo Maria/Beatrice. And necessity, or irresistible force, drove them together. But it must end there, because there never was any chance of love, or any further parallel with the Aeneid.

Marziano may have chosen Aeolus to represent necessity, or fate, for Filippo Maria. But there was never any danger that Beatrice might steal his heart yet prove infertile for offspring. What would have been the danger if she had been younger and equally rich? Who cares what woman bears the heir, so long as she is acceptable?

No, the real message, if we want to find one, is the danger of Filippo Maria's sudden wealth and power. It was not some Virgilian danger from Beatrice-as-Dido in a personal sense. She would have been fine as a wife if she were fertile (but why did not she and Facino have children?), but even not it didn't matter.
Image

Re: Filipo Maria Visconti - A Child of Saturn

#239
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:
06 Apr 2020, 16:30
Phaeded wrote:
06 Apr 2020, 15:28
But note Saturn is described by all the medieval mythographers as holding a snake biting its own tail, so "circular" (depicted in the hands of Saturn in the frescoes in Angera) and that in the De sphera 'frontispage 'below the dragon's neck and arms form a circle, mimicking the ring it holds (also note 6 circles on the wings which make the ring #7 - the number of planetary Saturn).
What system are you referring to for Saturn as 7? I always understand him as 3, i.e.

1 Primum Mobile
2 Sphera Stellarum
3 Saturn
4 Jupiter
5 Mars
6 Sun
7 Venus
8 Mercury
9 Moon
Just in the sense of the seven planets - Saturn is the highest (if slowest), thus seventh. Although De Predis does show Saturn right after frontispiece, thus inviting a comparison to the human-headed dragon there. But there is no ordinal enumeration given in De Predis's frontispiece - just seven circles, if you count the ring as one.

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

#240
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:
06 Apr 2020, 09:42

Livy is sufficient explanation in my opinion because Decembrio singles this author out of all the ancient authors as Filippo Maria's favorite. The dii consentes also makes superfluous the question of whether they conceived of the "Twelve Olympians." There was no need, these gods are named as such in Livy and Apuleius, easily available Latin authors.

There is no need to bring Manilius into it, or the zodiac. Start with the text, look for the closest source; these twleve are found in Livy, and only Bacchus replacing Vulcan has to be explained.
Livius has a single sentence, which is related in the matter: "Six couches were publicly exhibited; one for Jupiter and Juno, another for Neptune and Minerva, a third for Mars and Venus, a fourth for Apollo and Diana, a fifth for Vulcan and Vesta, and the sixth for Mercury and Ceres."

This is naturally far more than a complete book, which was unknown in Italy and totally new in 1418 and nobody was interested to know what's inside this more than 1400 years old nonsense and the topic "astrology" was anyway out of fashion. And the painters in Palazzo Schiffanoia had the wrong instructions and the printer in Ferrara had taken a false manuscript, a Livius book 22 was demanded and very necessary.

This was a joke ... :-) ... your one-sentence-of-Livius argument is simply too weak against the influence, that the Manilius text took during 15th century. Nothing against Livius and his sentence. At its place it tells us likely a correct described condition of the old Roman time. But Manilius tells us more about the 12 Götter. His 5 books have about 200 kb, that's a little more than one sentence.

Roscher Mythologie-Lexikon to 12 gods (Zwölfgötter)
https://archive.org/stream/roscher1/Ros ... 5/mode/2up
... and then it goes from the half pages 764 till 848. This is a little more than 1 sentence.
Another version of the same article, better to read but not complete ...
https://books.google.de/books?id=MTUw1u ... &q&f=false
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mikeh and 9 guests

cron