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

#141
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 21:41
... my study is what might be charitably called a Goddamned mess, and my files are behind boxes that are behind boxes.

Barricading yourself in against the coronavirus zombie apocalypse? ;-) Glad to hear you’ve not been carried off at all events.

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 21:41
I can't say if Marziano were influenced by Christine de Pizan or the debate in general. Not that I doubt it; I just have no way of knowing. For the moment, those gods to me are sufficiently explained by Livy and Apuleius Dii Consentes, with Vulcan replaced by Bacchus for reasons we can reasonably suspect (at the very least, he is not a very “heroic” figure, there's only room for one sour note, Cupid), and the final four idiosyncratic choices to fill out the fourfold structure.

Yet the fourfold suits lead us back to what I would consider the primary premise of cupidity, particularly pleasures and “virginities.” Marziano is not a simply providing a didactic primer on the classical gods and heroes (whatever the source), but placing them in the chaste context of (Christian) marriage. In his dedicatory preface he tells Filippo that “by observation of them, be ready to be aroused to virtue.” Just as you noted "Epicurean" was code for a sexual orientation, so too “aroused to virtue” is not simply a polite call to hedonism but to pursue that activity within the confines of virtue, i.e., marriage. If your 1412 date is correct it is precisely at this time that Filippo’s court was cajoling him to marry Facino Cane’s widow, Beatrice Lascaris di Tenda, in order to consolidate power (which he did the next year).

Even the highest pagan gods’ attributes in Marziano underscore this premise. Jupiter is noted for establishing the first laws and the very first law listed is that he “instituted matrimony”; Juno, in turn, is first of all noteworthy for making sure young women carry “the sacred modesty of virginity to husbands for the duty of matrimony.”

Gian Galeazzo’s famous Visconti genealogy, again, created after his death and thus with succession on the mind, begins the genealogical tree of the Visconti with the triad of Jupiter, Venus and Aeneas (leading to Anglus – the ancestor of the Visconti). Less discussed is the Visconti Hours leaf 57v, which is one of the first Bebello insertions for Filippo into what was originally Gian Galeazzo’s work, showing Filippo thin and young, and in a nimbus cloud as was popular in the Valois courts – perhaps from 1412. Around the main image g Filippo is an abridged version depicting the Visconti genealogy. What is more interesting is the primary subject of that Visconti Hour leaf – “the transference of blame” (Adam blaming Eve who blames the serpent), which is the Judeao-Christian “fall” in terms of sex/generation/original sin, and from whence all of humanity traces its genealogy (and original sin was certainly important in Pavia where Augustine was buried).

Image
VH 57v.jpg
(313.89 KiB) Not downloaded yet

Chastity is nothing less than a corrective to this lapse in Eve's judgement and again represents a quarter of the deck’s heroes (certainly an interpretatio christiana). And let us remember it was Beatrice's lapse in behaving in a chaste manner (adultery) which were the grounds by which Filippo had her executed.

If I unintentionally suggested Migli introduced this genealolgy project to France from Milan (“wrote two poems that similarly bestowed a divine genealogy on Louis”), let me be clear this French project went back to even before the Valois:

One such [ethnogenic] fable, which proved to be a particularly hardy one, is famed above all – that according to which the Franks wee descedents of the Trojan Francus, as the Romans were of Trojan Aeneas. This legend was an invention of Merovingian scholars [Fredegaire], but it should not be dismissed as a mere fantasy of learned minds. It was raken seriously as geneaology, and became a "veritable form of ethnic consciousness.” (Jean Seznec, Survival of the Pagan Gods 1953: 19)

Like you, I’m looking for direct routes of transmission – hence the suggestion of Pizan and Migli (of whom we have evidence of correspondence between both courts) – but per Seznec, there were other older and contemporary French projects espousing the same (again, I encourage you to reread that entire Seznec chapter). And in Milan, the Visconti Hour leaf points us to the same realization that Filippo was engaged in this “ethnogenic” project. The question is whether Marziano’s deck was a playful rumination on the same. The internal evidence – “virginities”, Jupiter’s first law of marriage, Juno as exemplary model for brides – all point us in this direction, particularity in 1412 when Filippo was being nudged in the direction of marrying an older woman with whom he otherwise had no interest. Conversely, this could still date from 1418 when he had Beatrice killed for adultery, and then the acute need for a successor was more keenly felt when there not even a spouse. Either way, the Marziano deck seems to have an end in mind by arousing its subject to virtue – marriage - and in turn a continuation of the ethnogenic line. This abiding concern is self-evident in Filippo’s titles, as can be read on the 1441 Pisanello medal made for him – the very first title is the ethnogenic one: PHILIPPUS MARIA * ANGLUS * DVX * MEDIOLANI * ETCETERA.

Phaeded

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

#142
Phaeded wrote:
20 Mar 2020, 02:32
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:
19 Mar 2020, 21:41
... my study is what might be charitably called a Goddamned mess, and my files are behind boxes that are behind boxes.
Barricading yourself in against the coronavirus zombie apocalypse? ;-) Glad to hear you’ve not been carried off at all events.
The jumble could serve as a barricade, indeed. If we lose the power, I'll have to lock myself in here with my books. Might actually get it organized so I can find stuff. It wasn't this way last fall, but during the winter we have to store things inside, and our house is configured so that my office is on the ground floor, opening onto the back yard. Hence it is the first place to gather junk that needs protection from the elements. Soon it will spill into the yard again, where it all belongs.

In the meantime, I need to take a paper with me any time I leave my house, with the reason stated. It is since Tuesday afternoon; we may be like this for six weeks, hopefully not more.
If your 1412 date is correct it is precisely at this time that Filippo’s court was cajoling him to marry Facino Cane’s widow, Beatrice Lascaris di Tenda, in order to consolidate power (which he did the next year).
Just a note here, the only source for a date of this wedding is the Chronica bossiana, which gives it as 24 July 1412. The engagement, such as it was, probably occurred immediately after Facino's death, according to the Chronica, at his urging on his deathbed:
Die sexto decimo mensis maii hora vigesima secunda Facinus canis Papie decessit: qui pauloante obitum uxorem Beatricem consilio atque suasu Antonii bossii magne estimationis viri Philippo Marie desponsavit. (link below to page, top lines)

On the sixteenth of May, at the twenty-second hour, Facino Cane died in Pavia. Who, a short time before his death, had betrothed his wife Beatrice, through the counsel and persuasion of Antonio Bossi, a man of great value, to Filippo Maria.
See Attilio Butti's notes to Decembrio's Vita, chapter 8, here (p. 20, right column, lines 55-56) -
https://books.google.fr/books?id=zHUtAQ ... 22&f=false

See the same place, Fossati's notes, p. 375, lines 36-40, for more discussion of the events surrounding the betrothal.

Antonio Bossi,
"In fine è noto come egli appunto, con altri, avrebbe consigliato Il Cane a destinar Beatrice in moglie all'ultimo Visconti (seconodo qualcuno, per es. Fagnani, avrebbe consigliato Beatrice al matrimoni). In questa occasione la Chronica bossiana lo dice magne estimationis viri."

In sum, it is noted how he, with others, had advised Cane to marry Beatrice to the last Visconti (according to some, for example Fagnani, he had advised Beatrice to the marriage). On this occasion the Chronica bossiana calls him a “man of great value.”
It may be that Facino Cane saw the same promise in Filippo Maria that Decembrio reports his father Gian Galeazzo had, wishing he could put Filippo Maria ahead of Gian Maria in the succession (Vita 6).

The Chronica Bossiana is not paginated, but is page 249 of the PDF when opened or downloaded, and should be at this link, lines 33-35-
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k59530g/f247.item
"Die dominico quarto ac vigesimo iulii die Beatrix Canis Philippo Marie desponsata cum magnificentissimo apparatu ad virum ducta est."

Sunday the twenty-fourth of July, the day that Beatrice Cane, having been betrothed to Filippo Maria, with the most magnificent pomp was led to her husband.
Image

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

#143
Ross,
I'm familiar with the Bossi due to their chapel in S. Maria Incoronata (otherwise dedicated to St. Nicholas of Tolentino) - one of Sforza's first acts was to rebuild this church near a northern city gate, apparently in celebration of his victory. Its an odd double-church and a few older frescoes and the Bossi chapel off to the right (when you come in the entrance). Sfora's brother Gabriel, made bishop of Milan, is buried in the floor there as well. So it looks like the Bossi are enterprising clan - jumping on the Filippo bandwagon early and then with Sforza early as patrons of this church.

I've visited this church twice and have more info on it which I can't find at the moment, even buying the church history booklet (same mess here), but the city gate it was near was the Porta Comasina (rebuilt and now called the Porta Garibaldi), which lead to Como, hence the name...but wound its way through Monza first, from where Sforza negotiated the terms of him becoming duke and then his ingresso (so perhaps the "incoronata" was not just related to Mary's assumption and crowning in heaven but was a double celebration of Sforza's crowning as duke; certainly the crown held by the allegorical figure in the CY "World" would have created a precedential emphasis on the symbolism of the crown, as would the Visconti ducal crown with fronds impresa).

However, I get that the Beatrice wedding happened in 1412, not 1413, but 'm not sure of your opinion of the marriage argument I've laid out for the Marziano. Your thoughts there? In my view, Bossi was probably just one of the courtiers - or "friends" (amici) as Decembrio puts it - pushing for the marriage with Beatrice (vita, 8).

Phaeded

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

#144
Phaeded wrote:
20 Mar 2020, 18:01

However, I get that the Beatrice wedding happened in 1412, not 1413, but 'm not sure of your opinion of the marriage argument I've laid out for the Marziano. Your thoughts there? In my view, Bossi was probably just one of the courtiers - or "friends" (amici) as Decembrio puts it - pushing for the marriage with Beatrice (vita, 8).

Phaeded
I'm still thinking about the implications. It seems likely that Marziano would want Filippo Maria to get on with the business of producing an heir, in spite of, or rather because of, his true predilections. And Beatrice was too old.

But everybody would be thinking that, and advising that, so I don't find it immediately convincing that Marziano would subtext his game with this message. But I'll give it more thought. Remember that Filippo Maria did, in fact, appoint Antonio, his bastard brother, as successor. He made the civil authorities swear the same oath of obedience to him as they did to himself, just to make sure. In the early days, Filippo Maria was not sure of his position. Antonio is the presumptive successor to at least 1419; I haven't made a careful study of the evidence, and whether Antonio's apparent demotion had anything to do with Filippo Maria's new status after Beatrice's untimely demise.
Image

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

#145
Phaeded wrote:
20 Mar 2020, 18:01
However, I get that the Beatrice wedding happened in 1412, not 1413, but 'm not sure of your opinion of the marriage argument I've laid out for the Marziano. Your thoughts there? In my view, Bossi was probably just one of the courtiers - or "friends" (amici) as Decembrio puts it - pushing for the marriage with Beatrice (vita, 8).
I find that I remain resistant to your arguments. I have taken your recommendation to reread Seznec, and it remains a brilliant statement of the centrality of euhemerism in the European tradition. Of course this was the historical view of Marizano and Filippo Maria. (It's always good to read brilliant minds like Seznec again, and again, of course, however many footnotes we can add). But he doesn't lead me to the very specific interpretation of Marziano's text that you are proposing.

First, I'm sorry that the word "aroused" misled you. It is just excito (excitare), which does not have a necessary sexual connotation, altough it surely could in the right context. It is really no different than our "excite," which, in the right context, can also be sexually suggestive. A simple "roused" might have been better (the very fact that I left it as "aroused" shows that a sexual connotation didn't occur to me. I'll change it in any future publication). So here I think it is over-interpretation, or eisegesis.

Your argument for a context in which excito has a sexual - albeit chaste - connotation relies on Jupiter establishing matrimony and Juno making sure women remained chaste before (and during) marriage. My feeling is that both are just commonplaces for these figures, given as such in Boccaccio (and also at the beginning of the world history section of Chronica bossiana (1492), which I just learned of. See here, and the top of the next page, where he refers to Boccaccio; the list of acts of Jupiter is "constitutio matrimonii" and "institutio sacerdotis" - https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k59530g/f22.item ), and not emphasized by Marziano for a particular purpose.

The "Anglus" in Filippo Maria's title. I think it just came with the job, I don't get a particular ethnogenic sense from it. To check, I looked at Iohannes Maria, who also went by Iohannes Maria Anglus in his documents. But not so for Iohannes Galeaz himself, who usually went by Iohannes Galeaz Comes Virtutum. I haven't come across an instance of him using Anglus.

So "Anglus" remains open to interpretation as to its implications, since the sons used it, although the father didn't. They may have been self-conscious of the dynastic pretensions in a way he was not. But the fact that neither cared to really try to carry on the family name is striking.

Here is some more information on Antonio Bossi, who was Facino Cane's man, and much older than Filippo Maria,

See Fossati's note in Vita p. 375:
Antonio fu personaggio Notevole anche del seguito di Facino Cane, che l'ebbe graditissimo; lo vediamo suo procuratore nel contratto 5 ottobre 1395 con Genova (Ercole Ricotti, Storia delle compagnie di ventura in Italia, I and II (Torino, 1847), pp. 347-353, Nota XV “Contratto di assoldamento tra la Repubblica di Genova e Facino Cane”).
“Antonio was also a notable personage in the retinue of Facino Cane, who greatly favored him; we see him as his procurator in the contract of 5 October 1395 with Genoa (Condotta contract between the Republic of Genoa and Facino Cane – at the very end of the book https://books.google.fr/books?id=goUDAA ... 22&f=false )

On Antonio Visconti in Giacinto Romano (1854-1920), “Contributi alla storia della ricostituzione del ducato milanese sotto Filippo Maria Visconti (1412-1421),” part 1 in Archivio Storico Lombardo, serie terza, volume VI, anno XXIII (1896) 231-290 (years 1412-1414) (continued in part 2 in Archivio Storico Lombardo 24 (1897), 67-146, years 1415-1421); p. 244:

Number XXX. 15 July, 1412, Milan.
Boschino Mantegazzi, milite, Giovanni da Carnago dottor di leggi e Luchino Crivelli, sindaci e procuratori del Comune di Milano, giurano di riconoscere Antonio Visconti figlio del fu Giovanni Galeazzo, primo duca di Milano, come legittimo erede del duca Filippo Maria, e di essergli fedeli qualora Filippo Maria venisse a morire senza eredi (2).

(2) Importante documento, finora sconosciuto, che dimostra come Filippo Maria, fin da' primordi del suo innalzamento, velle provvedere alle sorti del ducato, chlamando a succedergli il proprio fratello Antonio, il quale sebbene d'origine illegittima, era, dopo di lui, l'unico superstite de' discendenti diretti di Giangaleazzo suo padre. Tale provvedimento fu forse suggerito dalla poca sicurezza personale del duca e dalla nessuna probabilità che egli avesse figliuoli dalla moglie Beatrice. Quello che a noi importa è che in quasi tutti gli atti dal 1412 al 1416 e in parecchi de' successivi fino all'anno 1419 Antonio Visconti è indicato come l'erede presuntivo del ducato; il che modifica notevolmente quanto scrissero in proposito, ed in modo assai incerto ed incompleto, il Litta, Visconti di Milano, Tav. VI e il Giulini, VI, 512.
Boschino Mantegazzi, knight, Giovanni da Carnago, doctor of law, and Luchino Crivelli, syndics and procurators for the comune of Milan, swear to recognise Antonio Visconti, son of the late Giovanni Galeazzo, first duke of Milan, as the legitimate heir of Duke Filippo Maria, and to be faithful to him should Filippo Maria come to die without an heir.

(2) An important document, hitherto unknown, which shows how Filippo Maria, from the very beginning of his accession, wished to provide for the future of the duchy, naming his brother Antonio to succeed him; who, although of illegitimate origin, was, after him, the only surviving direct descendant of his father Giangaleazzo. Such a measure was perhaps suggested by the duke's lack of personal security, and by the fact that he was not likely to have sons by his wife Beatrice. What matters to us is that in almost all the acts from 1412 to 1416 and in several subsequent up to the year 1419, Antonio Visconti is indicated as the heir presumptive of the duchy; this changes considerably what was written about it, and in a very uncertain and incomplete way, by Litta, Visconti di Milano, Tav. VI and Giulini, VI, 512.

(Ross - Romano's reference to Giulini here is corrupt; he is using the 1855 edition, but this page of volume VI has nothing to do with Antonio Visconti or even the years in question. So I can't say what he is correcting in Giulini's statements, although it is not as important as the fact that nobody knew of Antonio Visconti's place before in any case)

Number XXXI. 15 July, 1412, Milan.
Antonio di Milio vicario di provvisione e i dodici ufficiali della provvisione del Comune di Milano prestano giuramento come sopra ad Antonio Visconti.
Antonio di Milio, Vicar of Provvisione, and the Twelve Officials of Provvisione of the Comune of Milan swear the oath as above to Antonio Visconti.

Nota bene - Romano's list in ASL was the first systematic study of original documents relating to Filippo Maria. They are in the Registri ducali, now published online in high-res format (although not downloadable) at the Archivio di Stato di Milano website. Those relating to Antonio are in volume 10. I can't give a more direct link than this. http://www.asmilano.it/AriannaWeb/main. ... 0_archivio
The volumes are in the bottom left frame. You have to activate your Flash reader to see them, when you click the tab "Immagini." Volume 10, page 8 of the reader. There were three specific oaths of fealty given to Antonio on July 15: first the Syndics, then the Vicar and XII of Provvisione, and last the castellan of Porta Giovia, Vincenzo Marliani. They are folios 18r to 20v, corresponding to pages 50 to 54 of the reader. Worth a look, if only to see Modesto Decembrio's delightful notarial signature.


http://www.rosscaldwell.com/marzianotex ... ol87v2.jpg
This is not one of the acts; I have this one because it is one of those to which Marziano was a witness, where you can see his name "domino Marciano de Rampinis" at the beginning of the penultimate line of text (not the two notarial signatures).


This is Modesto Decembrio's vignette beside his signature in all of his notarial documents, this one from 15 July 1412, one of the oaths of fealty to Antonio Visconti.
Image

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

#146
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:
21 Mar 2020, 15:40
The "Anglus" in Filippo Maria's title. I think it just came with the job, I don't get a particular ethnogenic sense from it. To check, I looked at Iohannes Maria, who also went by Iohannes Maria Anglus in his documents....
So "Anglus" remains open to interpretation as to its implications, since the sons used it, although the father didn't. They may have been self-conscious of the dynastic pretensions in a way he was not.


Actually:
Giangaleazzo did not forget, amid the political advantages which he derived from his new title [imperial investiture of 1395], that it represented at the same time the personal apotheosis of the Visconti. He secured from the Emperor in the following year the additional title of Count of Angera; and complacent genealogists proved his right to it by tracing the descent of the Visconti from the legendary founder of Angera, Anglus the grandson of Aeneas. (Daniel Meredith Bueno de Mesquita, Giangaleazzo Visconti: Duke of Milan : 1351-1402, 1941: 176)

See also Edith Kirsch's in-depth discussion of the same in her Five Illuminated Manuscripts of Giangeleazzo Visconti, 1991: 78-86. The bottom line is this genealogy was ready to go at the time of Giangaleazzo's death, so he must have already invested in its creation (illuminated previously or not), perhaps in connection with the formal petition to the Emperor in 1396 that resulted in the imperial infeudation of Angera for Giangaleazzo.

But I’m not sure why you're glossing over the explicit structure of Marziano's deck and the implications for marriage, for the narrative is not the mere listing of 16 heroum but their assignment into two general themes: Cupidity (riches/pleasures) versus Virtue (virginities/virtues). The cultural context is the Castelletto/Besozzo Eulogie genealogy and the same performed for the first Belbello leaf for Filippo in the Visconti Hours (Eve's original sin and becoming mother of all of humanity, encircled by an abridged version of Filippo's genetic line of ancestors, in Visconti Hours leaf 57v).

Whichever nuance one places on excito the meaning is clear: Filippo, the addressee, is being encouraged to virtue even while contemplating the cavorting gods that terminate in Cupido (forming a sort of pendant, just as Eve initiates the generation of mankind). Filippo's not a monk, so what does such advice lead to other than to finding a suitable “Daphne” within the confines of sanctioned marriage (which may have implications for the date of Marziano)? Beatrice, as you noted, was just as much of an expedience as was Antonio, as I will presently argue for the latter.

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:
21 Mar 2020, 15:40
An important document, hitherto unknown, which shows how Filippo Maria, from the very beginning of his accession, wished to provide for the future of the duchy, naming his brother Antonio to succeed him; who, although of illegitimate origin, was, after him, the only surviving direct descendant of his father Giangaleazzo. Such a measure was perhaps suggested by the duke's lack of personal security, and by the fact that he was not likely to have sons by his wife Beatrice. What matters to us is that in almost all the acts from 1412 to 1416 and in several subsequent up to the year 1419, Antonio Visconti is indicated as the heir presumptive of the duchy; this changes considerably what was written about it, and in a very uncertain and incomplete way, by Litta, Visconti di Milano, Tav. VI and Giulini, VI, 512.


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).

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, likened here in Decembrio even as “crimes.” There is no indication that Antonio is one whose character changed (i.e., that there was ever a good reason to have selected him), but that his shortcomings were self-evident over “a very long time.” In lieu of a direct successor, Filippo had to chose a family relation, and for the reasons you pointed out, Antonio fit the bill as well as anyone else via his (illegitimate) descent from Gian Galeazzo. But this was never going to be more than a temporary arrangement until Filippo had issue himself (that would have been the expectation of himself and his court). Consider the fraternal role of the Dauphin in France – until the king bore a male child his eldest brother (Duke of Orleans or whichever duchy) held the title of Dauphin, but relinquished the title immediately upon the birth of said male child of the king.

The unsuitability of Antonio, despite Filippo’s presumed early playboy favoritism, is touched upon again in Decembrio’s vita:

In the early stages of his rule he made his half-brother Antonio his heir. But he soon became discouraged by Antonio’s bad character and ordered that his nephew Giacomo – the son of Gabriele – be given preference. (ibid, 71, p. 149).

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. 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. 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).

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)

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.

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.

Phaeded

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

#147
Phaeded wrote:
22 Mar 2020, 23:25
Giangaleazzo did not forget, amid the political advantages which he derived from his new title [imperial investiture of 1395], that it represented at the same time the personal apotheosis of the Visconti. He secured from the Emperor in the following year the additional title of Count of Angera; and complacent genealogists proved his right to it by tracing the descent of the Visconti from the legendary founder of Angera, Anglus the grandson of Aeneas. (Daniel Meredith Bueno de Mesquita, Giangaleazzo Visconti: Duke of Milan : 1351-1402, 1941: 176)

See also Edith Kirsch's in-depth discussion of the same in her Five Illuminated Manuscripts of Giangeleazzo Visconti, 1991: 78-86. The bottom line is this genealogy was ready to go at the time of Giangaleazzo's death, so he must have already invested in its creation (illuminated previously or not), perhaps in connection with the formal petition to the Emperor in 1396 that resulted in the imperial infeudation of Angera for Giangaleazzo.
I only meant that I had not found him using it. There is a six-year period where he might have, 1396-1402, but I haven't made a systematic search. I don't mean to imply that he did not know or care for Angera, obviously. It was a jewel in the crown, and of course the anchor of the genealogy.
But I’m not sure why you're glossing over the explicit structure of Marziano's deck and the implications for marriage, for the narrative is not the mere listing of 16 heroum but their assignment into two general themes: Cupidity (riches/pleasures) versus Virtue (virginities/virtues). The cultural context is the Castelletto/Besozzo Eulogie genealogy and the same performed for the first Belbello leaf for Filippo in the Visconti Hours (Eve's original sin and becoming mother of all of humanity, encircled by an abridged version of Filippo's genetic line of ancestors, in Visconti Hours leaf 57v).

Whichever nuance one places on excito the meaning is clear: Filippo, the addressee, is being encouraged to virtue even while contemplating the cavorting gods that terminate in Cupido (forming a sort of pendant, just as Eve initiates the generation of mankind). Filippo's not a monk, so what does such advice lead to other than to finding a suitable “Daphne” within the confines of sanctioned marriage (which may have implications for the date of Marziano)? Beatrice, as you noted, was just as much of an expedience as was Antonio, as I will presently argue for the latter.
I don't mean to be glossing over it, but it is an angle I haven't considered. The only part I have considered is that Filippo Maria may have deliberately sought out Michelino because of the genealogy, and also because of the portrait he made of Giovanni Maria. He was sort of the official family painter.

The gods as Marziano presents them, as Boccaccio before him, aren't "cavorting." Those aspects are suppressed for the most part, and the intrepretatio Christiana applied. At least, it is implied, because, unlike Boccaccio, Marziano's text has no explicit references to Christianity.

NOTE - I'm running to dinner, so here are some notes for later editing, in case you come while I'm out.

Chronology of Gabriele-Giacomo and Antonio - important correction for you, Giacomo's replacement as successor was 1429, not 1419. Nowhere near a "circa" there. Ianziti note page 284 note 84. Giacomo was given Tortona in 1424.

Main sources given in Fossati pages 252 note 1 to 256 note 2.

Gabriele 1385-1408 (Ianziti page 284 note 83), tortured and beheaded in Genoa at the age of 22.
According to Ianziti note page 284 note 84 Giacomo born circa 1405; made heir in 1429, provided Filippo Maria himself produced none (Fossati p. 257 lines 25-36). Not sure what basis Ianziti has for the year of birth, since Giacomo was already called a counselor, consiliarius (first among several other well known names) on 4 March 1422. I would think he were more than 17 years old by this point:

Praesentibus Magnificis, Spectabilibus, & Egregiis Viris Domino Jacobo de Vicecomitibus Filio quondam Magnifici Domini Gabrielis, Domino Gaspare de Vicecomitibus Milite Filio quondam Magnifici Viri Domini Berteti, Comite Francisco de Vicecomitibus dicto Carmagnola Comite Castri Novi, Domino Antonio Bossio Filio quondam Domini Bilioli, etc.Consiliariis;

(in the vast collection of) Jean Du Mont, Corps universel diplomatique du Droit des Gens; contentant un recueuil des traitez d'alliance, de paix, de trêve, de neutralité, de commerce, d'échange, de Protection & de Garantie, de toutes les Conventions, Transactions, Pactes, Concordats, & autres Contrats, qui ont été faits en Europe, depuis le Regne de l'Empereur Charlemagne jusques à présent, etc. Amsterdam, 1726, volume II, part II (both parts bound as one volume)
https://books.google.be/books?id=y_hCAA ... us&f=false
Second part page 165, right column bottom.
Earliest implied position among the privy counselors (consigliere segreto, consilium secretum) is 1437 (Fossati p. 255 lines 105-107).

Fief of Tortona given to Giacomo on 3 February 1424 (Fossati 256 lines 56-59). An edition of the document is now published in Federica Cengarle, Feudi e feudatari del duca Filippo Maria Visconti (Milan 2007), pp. 319-320, document 149. But Marziano is not mentioned in it anywhere, as witness or secretary (neither is Enrico Rampini, still bishop of Tortona, whom one would think would have had an interest in the act). I think by this point, the last year of his life, he was retired from his service to the duke.
Image

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

#148
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.

Phaeded
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.
Image

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

#149
Hey Ross,
I'm quite willing (if not compelled) to jettison the Antonio/Giacomo arguments (inclusive of Tortona's [in]signficance), but not throwing out the ethnogenic bath water, as it were. The mistaken inferences I made (annual oaths and a transfer of heirs c. 1419) resulted from my misinterpretation of this citation of yours: "What matters to us is that in almost all the acts from 1412 to 1416 and in several subsequent up to the year 1419, Antonio Visconti is indicated as the heir presumptive of the duchy."

You also note: "Maybe, and apparently he could have even named Bianca Maria his heir...." I've always wanted to jump on that idea, but somewhere Ianziti refers to an Italian scholar who apparently proved she was merely legitimized but never named heir. Nevertheless, there was no other issue, which in turn placed an undue sense of importance of whom Bianca might be married off to (certainly it was not beneath a d'Este prince, for instance, and Sforza doggedly pursued that match - however legally unfounded in terms of inheritance - as the stepping stone to the Duchy). But Bianca is of course a side issue, coming after Marziano.

I find the key to be the way the suits are grouped into a "Abstinence/Epicurean" duality; as Marziano put it: "Eagles [Virtues] and Turtledoves [Virginities] the many command the few: that is to say it goes better for us when many cultivate virtue and continence (p. 25, your translation). By contrast, you see just a twist on the standard suits:

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 Pleasures, Swords are Virginities, and he places Pallas/Athena first.


Different equivalences are easily made - Virtus as the virtuousness of a manly knight would better go with the sword; Cups could just as soon be the Grail pursued by the chaste Galahad (Arthurian themes were of course illustrated by Bembo), and indeed the CY Ace of Cups is such a Grail-like object: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... f_Cups.jpg ; Pallas is not described by Marziano as holding a sword but the exact symbolic opposite of that - "clasping the peace-bearing olive" (ibid, 35). None of these suit assignment holds up with any kind of certainty.

This still leaves the WHY of the deck - why was it created? Marziano being a virginal cleric is immaterial - he wasn't creating the deck for the use of a religious order, but for a prince expected to produce children, which in the case of either date, he did not have. One cannot underscore enough the anxieties of any court in that time period regarding succession until children are born, especially a male. Filippo's never-ending anxiety over trusting anyone, especially his condottiere, had to be due in some measure to this lack of a male heir. Consider that after he named Sforza a "VICECOMES" and married Bianca off to him, Filippo was utterly disappointed to find the two feted in Venice the next year. Take a look at Margaret King's timeline (in her Marcello work) for the unfolding of those events (and note Sforza had already been given a palace in Venice, which he was at in February 1442, so plenty of time for Filippo to fume before making the alliance with the pope against Sforza):

1442, 3-6 May
Sforza and his bride Bianca Maria Visconti are in Venice and lavishly entertained by Doge and Dogaressa [Dolfin and Sanuto references/quotes follow]

1442: 17 May
...[Venetian] Senate letter responds with displeasure to Sforza's news that Pope Eugene IV had reached an agreement with Niccolo Piccinino (he was made of gonafaliere of the church)....
(King, 1994: 255)
King goes on to note the alliance of Filippo and Eugene later in that year (30 Nov.) but that had obviously already occurred in some fashion for Picciinino was Filippo's man. To get a sense of how pissed off Filippo was at his wayward son-in-law being feted in Venice, note that Piccinino's Pisanello medal from that year now names him as VICECOMES....and the imagined filial devotion didn't even cost Filippo a fief this time around (Piccinino just wanted his hometown of Perugia as a base, whose symbol of the griffin is on the reverse of this medal):

Image



Nevertheless, in accordance with Filippo's wishes, once Bianca and Sforza gave Filippo his first grandson in 1444, they duly named him for the grandfather and father's middle names: Galeazzo Maria.

That is the degree that Filippo was caught up in succession and the continuation of his ethnogenic line. He inherited that from the his father, the first duke of Milan, and it was Gian Galeazzo who insisted, even after securing the imperial rescript to the Duchy, that he also get Angera and the concocted Anglus ethnogenic genealogy, aping his French relations. That places the importance of "Anglus" and the related ethnogenic project on an almost equal footing to the title of the Duchy itself - certainly both sought for from the emperor at essentially the same time. To reiterate, the proof that Filippo was himself specifically interested in this ethnogenic enterprise is the Visconti Hours leaf showing the genitrix of mankind, Eve, surrounded by an abridged version of the Besozzo painted genealogy of 1402, with Filippo viewing the whole as a pendant at the bottom of the page. While loosely dated, Meiss/Kirsch's range of dates of this bust portrait of Filippo at least includes the dates we are both proposing (my lean to 1418 aside, I'm not convinced myself that 1412 is wrong, just that Marziano knowingly created his deck in terms of the ethnogenic project) :

The portrait of Filippo Maria on LF 57v, though more youthful than his likeness on the Pisanello medal of about 1441, might represent him in his twenties or thirties, and therefore may have been painted at any time between 1412 and the early 1430s (1972: 27).
Marziano's own conclusion to the prologue of his treatise sounds like a description of this very illumination, Filippo not connected to the literally portrayed family tree encircling Adam and Eve (a line that ultimately went back to Anglus and Anchises/Venus), but is instead observing it from his own nimbus cloud (as his father was portrayed by Grassi earlier in the Hours):


And it is even more pleasing where your keen intelligence will notice several most famous Heroes, whose virtue, renowned for the greatness of their gifts, or mighty power, made gods, and gave them as memorable to posterity. Thus by observation of them, be ready to be aroused to virtue. (Marziano, p. 23)
Image
VH 57v.jpg
(313.89 KiB) Not downloaded yet

Note how the encircling ethnogenic "vine", unlike in the Bosozzo geneaology, alternates male and female, in accord with Adam and Eve at the center, the ancestors of mankind. But also note that this male/female alteration is interrupted at the end of the "vine" that Filippo is in "observation" of - a young/boyish male and an older male with pointed beard above him: this must be Gian Maria (13 when he became duke) and their father Gian Galeazzo above him. One recollects here of Decembrio's note that Filippo kept a Besozzo painting of Gian Maria as a treasured possession (vita 40).

Even Venus, the female that begins the Besozzo geneaology, seems to have been commemorated in the much later Visconti-Sforza PMB deck's "Star" (clearly modeled on Paduan manuscripts and Eremitanni fresco cycle there that show the same Venus gesture of reaching up to a star), as both Venuses place a a hand on the belly in a Madonna del Parto gesture - the sign of pregnancy; i.e., the ultimate ethnogenic symbol (dynastic issue from the goddess):

Image
1402 genealogy, c.1451 PMB Star.JPG
(66.36 KiB) Not downloaded yet

Which brings me back to Marziano: If his deck was conceived with some reference to the ethnogenic project, then Venus would have held an elevated position within the deck, which would be surprising since she would fly in the face of his primary counsel that it us "better for us when many cultivate virtue and continence.". But if she were elevated inspite of her "pleasure principle" nature, that would point us to the ethnogenic project, where, besides Eve, she is the genitrix of the Visconti. And sure enough, after the king and queen of the gods (Jupiter and Juno) and then Pallas "the divinity of Wisdom" (in an interpretatio christiana closely related to God Himself, so she had to be ranked this high), we find Venus ranked over more virtuous and civilizing gods such as Apollo. But the very first thing Marziano has to say about Venus is in connection to her "star": Golden Venus, in perfect likeness to the morning star.... (ibid 39).

More to my central argument that the four suits are grouped into an "Abstinence/Epicurean" duality, Marziano continues:
Some among the ancients said that Venus was pleasure itself and placed in her the happiness of men; taking the thought from Epicurus, who professed pleasure to be the highest good. Although it was not of this sort of pleasure that such an honorable man discussed, but of that preferable pleasure which seemed to follow virtuous acts.(ibid, 40-41)
So even in Marziano's Venus, pleasure only follows when one has been excited to virtue....what is this if not the consummation following the virtuous act of marriage? Again, even the CY Love trump, featuring Venus's son hovering above, has the low matrimonial bed in the tent, to be utilized following the wedding ceremony: pleasure follows virtue.
Image


Phaeded

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

#150
Ross wrote
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.
Like Phaeded I question these assignments, if only for Virtus and Virginities.

In 1989 Pratesi wrote://trionfi.com/earliest-tarot-pack):
[A comment may at once be deserved to the four "suits". At first sight, they seem to be quite original; however, if the usual interpretations of the four suits in a standard pack are considered, the originality of these orders is strongly reduced: it is not difficult to suspect denari under riches, spade under virtues, coppe under pleasures, even if the association of bastoni with virginity or even with temperance, the alternative name of the order, is to me something still unheard of.]
Why should "bastoni" be "scepters" rather than just "sticks"? If sticks, they would count as a weaker weapon than swords, corresponding to the difference between the men of Eagles, the strongest bird, and the women of Turtledoves. Also, they originated from polo sticks and in their Spanish/Portuguese versions are clubs. Clubs as in the Marseille style courts, while their batons look more like polo sticks. In the Cary-Yale the bastoni have barbs on the end, so weapons there.

Added after reading the rest of Phaeded's post: it seems to me that the reason that Venus is elevated is that she is the strongest member of the foursome in Doves. Marziano has put the strongest representative of each at the head of its group. In her case, it is also her bird. Perhaps similar to Pallas and her olive branch in relation to staves, before he thought of birds. Phaeded's quotations are part of my argument that the four groups continue even as they are ordered from 1 to 16, even if he hasn't told us how that plays out in the game.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

cron