Phaeded wrote: ↑
22 Mar 2020, 23:25
You might have also referenced Decembrio here, whose father Uberto was secretary to Giovanni Maria, and thus well informed of succession issues. Marziano himself would have been quite familiar with Antonio since the heir's replacement was infeuded with Marziano’s hometown of Tortona:
Filippo was equally devoted to his two brothers born of different mothers and both illegitimate, Gabriele and Antonio. He wanted the younger of these, Antonio, to be constantly at his side, and he had him brought up and properly educated at court, treating him like a son. When he had taken over the Duchy of Milan, he made Antonio lord of Novara. He even made him his heir, but later changed his mind on account of the man’s lack of discipline and immoderate conduct. It was only when Niccolo d’Este lodged a special appeal on Antonio’s behalf that Filippo restored him to favor. He also summoned to his court Giacomo, Gabriele’s son, even though he was illegitimate and of uncertain stock. Not only did he appoint Giacomo to preside over his council, he even made him lord of Tortona and his heir, since he disapproved entirely of Antonio’s lifestyle. The patience he showed in bearing Antonio’s reckless behavior and wild tongue is well known. For Filippo had one quality inscribed in his character above all others: he could put up with the faults of his family members for a very long time, and would only act against them when they had truly worn him down with a long list of crimes. (vita 40; p. 65 in Ianziti’s translation).
You can see from the timeline above that Giacomo could only have been appointed to such a position long after Marziano's death. Decembrio appears to be the only source that he was appointed "head" of the privy council. Fossati's note to Decembrio's point here (p.255 lines 99ff) says "Non conosciamo documenti che confermino una prominenza si grande" - We know of no documents that confirm such a high position." He then goes on to cite examples of plain "consiliario" from 1422 (as I noted above) to 1439, noting especially that the privy council is implied in a document of 16 December 1437. (Registri ducali
41, folio 263, page 437 of the reader).
Whenever it was, given his age he could not have been a couselor, let alone the head of the privy council, in 1418. Ianziti wants him to be 17 in 1422, which seems young to be named first in the list of witnesses - ahead of Carmagnola - to one of the many acts of Genoa's submission. I would think him slightly older, at least 19. Gabriele, his father, is said to be 22 at the time of his execution, which seems to have been in December 1408, so he was born in 1386 (assuming all the accounts line up). Maybe Giacomo was named first in honor of his father, since this submission represented, in part, justice for his father's terrible death.
From this one gets a sense that when Filippo took the duchy as a young man he preferred the company of his hell-raiser kin Antonio, but as Filippo matured into the role of Duke he tired of Antonio’s antics,
One gets the sense that the dissatisfaction occurred over some time - well before he was officially dismissed as heir- and eventually Filippo was talked into naming a different heir.
Sure, that sounds plausible. It could also be partly that Antonio was just next in line, since Gabriele was dead. But yes, when Gabriele's son Giacomo was old enough and tested, in 1429, Filippo made him the presumptive heir over the unsuitable Antonio.
Knowing the date of the Marziano deck might clarify matters here (as well as when Giacomo was made heir - c.1419), but public acknowledgment of an heir - any heir (with annual oaths of fealty, etc.) - was a necessary if expedient ritual to add stability to Filippo’s reign.
The oaths weren't annual, just one-time for ever. Here is a depiction of Filippo Maria himself receiving such an oath of fidelity, at the head of Libellus feudorum reformatus
(aka De feudis liber singularis
of Bartolomeo Baraterio), 1442, artist unknown.
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... checontact
folio 1r (view 13)
Marziano would have been one of the men standing around the kneeling figure in dozens of these acts (and probably took his own at some point, although there is no record of it; Filippo Maria was his Lord, over Tortona, when he was only Count of Pavia, so it may just have rolled over when he became duke, I don't know).
Filippo was still expected to produce children - his own direct heirs. The bigger point is Marziano, perhaps inspired by larger rumblings among the other courtiers, could have devised his game as an inducement towards marriage at any point, given the rash Antonio as problematic heir (from 1412 to c. 1419). During that entire time period the larger issue of Filippo bearing children and a direct successor would have been acutely felt; ergo my “marriage” premise is valid in spite of Antonio (even a bastard child of Filippo's might have been legitimized and named heir, as was indeed the case with Leonello and Borso d’Este, so the “virtue” aspect in this hypothetical case would have only applied in terms of this legitimation, that is, if in fact Filippo had a child outside of wedlock with Beatrice, which of course he did not; but the point here is a deck "inviting" Filippo to procreate in some virtuous manner - resulting in a legitimate heir - could have been conceived of as early as 1412, although I personally now lean towards c. 1418).
Maybe, and apparently he could have even named Bianca Maria his heir if he had wanted, this seems to be indicated in some of the documents Fossati lists and quotes, from the emperor. I was wrong in one of my posts above, that only the pope could legitimize; the emperor also could. I suppose this was part of the dual system, where everybody was under pope or emperor as their ultimate legal authority. Whatever their actual differences, Filippo Maria was still legally subject to the emperor, although that had little practical impact.
What is particularly interesting here is the possible – if not probable - role that Marziano played in Antonio’s replacement. Decembrio, again, refers to Giacomo being appointed over Filippo’s council, of which Marziano was a prominent “insider” member of (from Barizza’s funeral oration for Marziano – your translation):
At [Filippo’s] court, as we all know, [Marziano] could, to the extent his health allowed, show incredible prudence in debating and wisdom in giving his opinion in the senate. The senators admired him as another Cato….I truly tell you that when such things came under our leader's judgement, he would, whenever he was a little while lifted from the cares of the realm, attentively hear this man's most wise debates. Often, when he pondered the most important things, he would freely converse with him and even wished him all knowledge of his secrets (Appendix I in Marziano, Tractatus de deificatione sexdecim heroum, Tr. Caldwell/Ponzi, 2019: 101-103 )
Far from a playboy, it seems Giacomo was worthy of presiding over Filippo’s counselors, and to the attainment of that role would it not make sense he was first championed by an important counselor - one that whom Filippo would even entrust with his secrets - Marziano himself? Marziano was promoted at this time to consigliere
c. 1418 (ibid, 4). Intriguingly, Giacomo is given none other than Marziano’s home town as a fief, which points us precisely in that direction, for even when Marziano died his personal notoriety there was held in the utmost esteem:
When will we or our descendants be allowed to hope for his like? Oh State of ours, deservedly made mournful and desolate by the death of so great a man! Oh people of Tortona, orphaned of such a parent! Oh our country, despoiled of its greatest ornament! (ibid, 99)
You see that the chronology doesn't allow this scenario. Marziano may well have instructed and championed Giacomo, but long before he was either a high counselor or had received Tortona in fief. So I don't see any use for this speculation.
As an aside, the "senate" that Barzizza referred to was, in the Milanese context, Filippo Maria's privy council and council of justice, which was always composed of very few men, together no more than a dozen. So there are very few men, some of whose names are known, who could have compared Marziano to Cato or Gaius Laelius. And this latter was Gaius Laelius the Younger, whom Cicero used as a character in several dialogues, the most important being De Amicitia
, where Gaius Laelius is the main interlocutor. Gaius Laelius' father, Gaius Laelius the Elder, has no "speaking parts" in literature. The deep friendship between Cato and Gaius Laelius is a deliberate allusion on Barzizza's part, I am sure, poignantly emphasizing the friendship between Filippo Maria and Marziano.
Giacomo must not have been given Tortona as his fief without any input from Marziano – indeed, this circumstantial evidence points us in the opposite direction: Giacomo as a protégé of Marziano (perhaps initially as pupil), just as Antonio had a champion in Niccolo d'Este (or much in the same way Lodrisio Crivelli was a protégé of Filelfo who played a critical role amongst the Milanese elites in offering the duchy to Sforza in 1450; see “Filelfo and the writing of history”, Gary Ianziti, in Francesco Filelfo, Man of Letters, ed. Jerone De Keyser, 2018: 101).
Given the above I’m leaning towards your original proposed dating of Marziano’s deck (and I believe Pratesi’s) of 1418. Beatrice was executed that year and Filippo was in need of a new wife. Furthermore, Antonio was ousted as heir sometime around 1418/19 (perhaps foreseeable as early as 1418 at all events) and so the succession issue for an offspring heir became doubly dire.
Well, I don't know about all this speculation, again. I don't know how much input Marziano would have had on the Tortona fief; he was Episcopal Vicar for Tortona at the time, representing his nephew, Enrico Rampini. But what does this imply for a feudal exchange? I have no idea.
Whether Giacomo was Marziano's protégé, again I don't know how to test this idea.
It's easy to get wrapped up in one's own theory, so that certain scenarios must
be so, but you have to get the facts straight first, and then find other ways to test the idea where facts don't exist.
Regarding Boccaccio as a prominent source for Marziano, and the provider of the linkage to Jupiter as the institutor of marriage, it does not diminish the relevance of the institution of marriage in light of Marziano’s deck’s suit of “virginities”, which in the Christian world did not only pertain to Vestal-like nuns but to the prerequisite condition of any marriageable woman (the expediency of Beatrice aside…and she was duly rid of in 1418). The cultural context, again, was the pre-occupation of Valois and Visconti courts with ethnogenic projects, and the very title of Boccaccio’s work was a closely related subject (if not a spur for the Valois/Visconti efforts): Genealogia deorum (certainly Pizan was heavily indebted to her fellow Italian, Boccaccio). If Marziano was profoundly influenced by this very work, working for a court that commissioned Filippo father’s Euology and related genealogy as well as an abridged version in Visconti Hours expanded for Filippo, how does one argue there is no connection to this cultural context, even when Marziano’s deck’s subject was tied to these very deorum/heroum? Marziano’s emphasis on euhemerism (heroes vs. gods) merely places the focus on human genealogical descent (versus the vagaries of actual pagan gods), which is what the Visconti Hours' leaf featuring Filippo and Eve suggests.
Marziano was himself such a "virgin," remember, a secular cleric, thus sworn to celibacy, although able to take benefices, own property, and other things forbidden to regular clerics. So it would be natural for him to consider virginity as a category.
I think the new suits are interpretations of the standard suits, so that Batons are Virtus (the scepter of rule), Coins are Riches, Cups are Pleasure, so Swords are Virginities, and he places Pallas/Athena first. He was already married when it was written, since the engagement, by all accounts, happened on Facino Cane's deathbed. So if Marziano is implicitly urging Filippo Maria to produce an heir, he means adulterously, with subsequent legitimization of the bastard. Nothing unusual in that.
If you want to push the date up to after September 1418, you have less problems with your interpretation. But I'll continue to argue for the earlier dating, for the reasons that began this conversation. Namely, that it seems ridiculous to remind a man at least 26 years old, who has proven himself in war and government, and who has had his wife executed, that some people call playing cards childish. It is a subtle observation, and my own sense, so it is weak, but it is the only internal hint at dating that I have managed to squeeze out of the text (since the title "duke" only tells us that it was after June, 1412). The other one, the suppression of Vulcan in favor of Bacchus, may imply a date after Beatrice's execution, but I take the "childish" remark to be a weightier indication, since the suppression of Vulcan can be attributed to other things, such as his lameness, which Decembrio reports Filippo Maria to have suffered from - crooked feet (pedibus incurvis
), and his general unheroic character, if not entirely pathetic, although he is reliable and resourceful.
Since your argument against my dating is also weak, based solely on your theory of the marriage purpose behind it, I remain comfortable with my early dating.