German luxury deck in Visconti court – a Marziano influence?

#311
In the “Collection ... Karnöffel” thread the number of cards per suit in Marziano based on German decks and John von Rheinfelden, I interjected the “Stuttgart” type deck was likely for various reasons internal to that deck. viewtopic.php?f=11&start=10&t=1033&sid= ... 47a6c9d9dd

Here I’d like to recap those points and then posit a connection between a likely commissioner of the Stuttgart deck and the Visconti.

First of all a quick summary of the relevant decks:
Stuttgart, c. 1430, "Upper Rhine"
52 cards, 13 card suits
Suits: Falcons, Ducks, Hounds, Stags
Court cards: King. Upper Knave, Lower Knave
Pips: Banner (10), 9-1.

Ambras Courtly Hunt, c. 1440-45, Basel (where JvR was published, although he hailed from just north of there in Freiburg im Breisgau)
56 cards: 14 card suits
Suits: Falcons, Herons, Hounds, Lures
Court cards: King, Queen, Upper Knave, Lower Knave
Pips: Banner (10), 9-1.

Courtly Household, c. 1450 "Upper Rhine"
48: 12 card suits
Suits: Arms of Germany, Bohemia, Hungary and France
Court cards: King and Queen
Pips: Master of Household (10), 9-1 are court functionaries down through "fool".

The Courtly Household deck is an outlier due to its idiosyncrasies of nationalities for the suits and different functionaries for the pips instead of varying numbers of the same animal/lure, so can likely be ruled out as an influence.

At all events, per Saint Bernardino, I assume 14 card suits for Italian to which Marziano would have been predisposed eve if he had a 13 suit Stuttgart deck.
And what of the King and pips - does Marziano necessarily imply 1 + 10? In fact both the Stuttgart and Ambras feature a banner as the 10th card, versus showing 10 individual animals. In fact the Stuttgart shows the King holding a banner, demonstrating an iconographic connection between the "10" pip and the King....so its not much a stretch to see the 10th pip as a singular image - the king. Thus King-10th pip + nine pips of birds. Below, the 10-pip/banner and king, both for the suit of ducks (the king's duck is in the stream below):

Image

One further suspicion that the deck in Visconti's possession was a Stuttgart-type deck is not only that it is the closest in time to Marziano's deck, but it pairs 3 female court cards for two of the suits with 3 male court cards for the other two suits, perhaps the impetus for the later CY which has both genders among the courts - 3 males and 3 females (granted, all 6 in each suit). Furthermore, all of the CY queens (albeit the queen of cups is missing) - have a lady-in-waiting crowding up to their laps just as the animals rear up the laps of the queens in the Stuttgart.

Image

The king with banner of the Stuttgart deck taking the place of the 10th pip-banner spot would be iconographically unsurprising, and thus the king in lieu of the 10th pip in Marziano's deck (each king undoubtedly featured his bird somewhere, so a clear option would have been the king holding a banner with a eagle, turtledove, dove or, phoenix). At all events, Marziano cleared out the normal court persons for his sexdecim heroum split up among the four suits - so to have a king in an intermediary realm outside the normal court and pips made no sense – the king has to be in one or the other, thus moved to the pips.
But why would the Visconti be prone to have any version of the German type decks? The most logical hypothesis would be their intermarriage with German princes and that German’s family links to one of these luxury types.

Regarding the original commissioner of the c. 1430 Stuttgart deck we know nothing, but the place of manufacture is identified as “southern Germany” with the only ventured specific being Swabia (see the brief entry on the World of Playing Cards: https://www.wopc.co.uk/germany/stuttgart ). The capital of Swabia is Stuttgart, the court city of the County of Württemberg. The first notice of the Stuttgart cards was they were in the possession of the Dukes of Bavaria in 1598, and then in the hands of the Württemberg by 1653, arguably because they recognized their coat of arms within the deck (more on that below). Just to be clear, the deck is called “Stuttgart” because they happen to be in that museum – not because anyone ever stated they were made by the family that ruled Stuttgart (but I’m postulating that here, based on the heraldic detail).

Why does Stuttgart and Württemberg matter? Bernabo Visconti’s grand strategy for alliances with the Holy Roman Empire (and France as well), partially in order to be invested with the imperial ducal title of Milan (which Giangaleazzo was able to do), succeeded with the following four daughters (listed below in the order of their births):

Taddea Visconti (1351 - 1381) married Stephen III, Duke of Bavaria (1337 – 1413), of the dominant House of Wtittelsbach, and was mother of Isabeau of Bavaria, wife of Charles VI of France. He opposed the Luxembourg and Tyrol branches of the family but that doesn’t seem to concern us here.

Antonia Visconti (c. 1364 Milan – 26 March 1405, Stuttgart) married Eberhard III of Württemberg (‘the Clement’) (1364 –1417, ruled 1392-1417), in 1380, ruling as Countess and Count of Württemberg, then a part of the Holy Roman Empire (became a Duchy in 1495). They had had 3 sons, the surviving one succeeding the father as Eberhard IV (1388-1419). The son Eberhard IV became engaged to Henriette of Mömpelgard in 1397 and married in 1407 at which time the county of Mömpelgard – although located somewhat remotely from Swabia just west of Basle, become part of Württemberg. After Antonia died, Eberhard III remarried (Elisabeth of Nuremberg) in 1412. At that time, it is likely that Eberhard III wanted to assure Visconti of continuing good relations, that his own half-Visconti son was still heir apparent, and also to congratulate Filippo of becoming duke in 1412, the same year as the second marriage.

Maddalena Visconti (1366 –1404) Duchess of Bavaria-Landshut by her marriage to Frederick, Duke of Bavaria-Landshut divided in 1392, when Bavaria-Landshut was reduced since Bavaria-Ingolstadt and Bavaria-Munich were created for his brothers.

Elisabetta Visconti (1374 –1432), Ernest of Bavaria-Munich (German: Ernst, Herzog von Bayern-München), (1373 –1438), from 1397 Duke of Bavaria-Munich.


Although the three daughters married into the House of Wittesbach is intriguing, what interests us here is Antonia’s marriage to Eberhard III of Württemberg as that house can be associated with the Stuttgart deck along heraldic lines. Given the Stuttgart deck is dated to c. 1430 it would have been produced by either of Antonia Visconti’s grandsons, Ludwig I (1412 -1450) or Ulrich V of (1413 – 1480) who partitioned Württemberg between them (Ludwig received the part of Urach with the territories in the south and the west of the county, including the territories in Alsace, near Basle – perhaps having a deck made there?). Ludwig, after a regency period, first ruled alone in 1426 through 1433 and either occasion might have been cause for celebratory productions such as a luxury deck and fall close enough to the c. 1430 date proposed for the deck.

So what is it about the Stuttgart deck that says “Württemberg”? The various colors on the banners look generic as in the Sforza De sphaera manuscript with the armies parading on its pages (although I grant they may relate to individual fiefs), but the primary symbol of the coat of arms of Württemberg is displayed in the suit of stags, albeit it in a slightly disguised manner, on both the highest court card – the Queen – and on the highest pip card, the banner (“10”). Württemberg’s symbol is three individual deer antlers, black, against a yellow/gold background, as displayed on the shield of Ulrich V in the painting below:

Image

Neither the yellow nor detached individual antlers are present in the Stuttgart cards, but that is easily explained as the suit’s animals are naturally depicted and thus the antlers as outgrowths of actual stags (not detached and displayed in parallel). What is unusual is the flattening of the antlers – versus being naturally upright - in notable cases of the queen and banner. In some of the pips the antlers seem flattened to make room for them at the top of those cards, and one might make the same case for the long but vertically short banner card, but it makes the stag’s antlers there look windswept. More importantly, a banner would normally serve a heraldic purpose. On the Queen there is no explanation other than trying to make the antlers – horizontal and in the same direction to the right – match the Württemberg wappen. Contrasting the female “upper knave/dame”, where the stag is rampant like the queen’s stag, one notes its antlers are naturally vertical, but the queen’s stag’s antlers are swept horizontally to the right and one can only guess it is because she rules the suit of stags and the family wanted their arms depicted there with the suit’s ruler (for similar reasons it is on the banner, highest of the pips). The objection that the arms show three horizontal antlers, not two, is disposed of with the same explanation that the stags are depicted as naturally as possible (sans the cases of horizontal antlers). What else can explain the idiosyncratic flattening of the antlers on key cards if not the Württemberg arms, especially on the queen card where there is plenty of vertical space?

Image
Antlers details:

Image
details of wappen and card horizontal antlers.JPG
(34.66 KiB) Not downloaded yet

Finally, did the Württemberg house recognize the Visconti connection? Eberhard III of Württemberg appears with his councilors in a copy of a c. 1400 manuscript (when Antonia Visconti was still alive) on a folio leaf full of German coats of arms, including the Württemberg antlers of course, which appear at least three times - upper left corner of the building frame, hanging from the suspended candelabra, and by a seated family noble on the right:
Image

There are three other coats of arms on the privileged ceiling candelabra hanging high above the proceedings, in addition to the Württemberg arms – one of them is the Visconti biscione (the German artist reversed the snake, but the family identification is clear). Eberhard III of Württemberg, ruler of a mere county, was naturally proud of his relationship with the powerful duke of Milan. There was no reason I can find that either him, his son, nor grandsons wished to sever that relationship, other than Giangaleazzo having displaced the father-in-law, Bernarbo. But Giangaleazzo was dead now at the time of Eberhard's remarrying after Antonia’s passing (she died in 1405) to a fellow German in 1412, and that could have been the impetus for confirming relations with Milan, of which a luxury deck would be a diplomatic gift, particularly in the year of Filippo’s own accession to the duchy. I’m not suggesting the c. 1430 Stuttgart deck was exact in its details of whatever might have arrived in Milan in c. 1412, but rather the basic format: birds were more than likely among the suits (even herons and winged lures are in the Ambras) and the banner in lieu of the 10 pip (also in the Ambras) as well as kings holding banners, allowing that conflation for a king as the 10 card in Marziano.

I should also add this: it has been speculated that the translation into German of Albertus Magnus' De animalibus, a Latin treatise on hunting, for Elector of the Palatine Ludwig III in 1404, sparked the craze for hunting decks: "Perhaps it was during this period, when hunting became an obsession with the nobility of Swabia and southwestern Germany, that suit symbols related to the hunt were introduced" (Timothy B. Husband, The World in Play - Luxury Cards, 1430-1540, 2016: 16). 1404 to 1412 allows 8 years for German luxury hunting deck production and for one of them to make its way to Milan. Marziano uniquely makes all the suits birds, but a hunting deck surely planted the idea (for there are no birds in an alternative like Mamluk playing cards).

Finally, if the Württemberg coat of arms look familiar, Porsche is located in Stuttgart:

Image

Phaeded

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

#312
Phaeded ...
Courtly Household, c. 1450 "Upper Rhine"
48: 12 card suits
Suits: Arms of Germany, Bohemia, Hungary and France
Court cards: King and Queen
Pips: Master of Household (10), 9-1 are court functionaries down through "fool".

The Courtly Household deck is an outlier due to its idiosyncrasies of nationalities for the suits and different functionaries for the pips instead of varying numbers of the same animal/lure, so can likely be ruled out as an influence.
I think there are mistakes. Generally the Hofämterspiel is assumed c. 1455, not c. 1450. I don't know, where you got this "upper Rhine" from. The deck was made for the Bohemian king Ladislaus. So it's likely, that it was made either in Bohemia or Nürnberg. What you call "idiosyncrasies of nationalities" is that. what guides to the situation of the Luxembourg dynasty at the end of 14th century, after Sigismund had become king of Hungary. The arrangement of the 4 nations has a Bohemian perspective. The father of Ladislaus (Albrecht II.) was Roman King, Bohemian king and king in Hungaria.

You overlook this. As you overlook the Bohemian perspective in the deck of John of Rheinfelden. This had professions at the number cards, and the "Courtly household" (Hofämter) is just also an expression of professions.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

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

#313
Huck wrote:
13 Jun 2020, 21:01
Phaeded ...
Courtly Household, c. 1450 "Upper Rhine"
48: 12 card suits
Suits: Arms of Germany, Bohemia, Hungary and France
Court cards: King and Queen
Pips: Master of Household (10), 9-1 are court functionaries down through "fool".

The Courtly Household deck is an outlier due to its idiosyncrasies of nationalities for the suits and different functionaries for the pips instead of varying numbers of the same animal/lure, so can likely be ruled out as an influence.
I think there are mistakes. Generally the Hofämterspiel is assumed c. 1455, not c. 1450. I don't know, where you got this "upper Rhine" from.
I got it from someone who worked in the NY Met's Department of Medieval Art and The Cloisters for more than forty years, completed his doctoral work at Columbia, and focuses on the later Middle Ages, mostly in the German-speaking world,; from this publication of his:
"Largely on stylistic basis, they [Courtly Household cards] are usually attributed to the region of the Upper Rhineland in southwestern Germany and date to about 1450." (Timothy B. Husband, The World in Play - Luxury Cards, 1430-1540, 2016: 49)
The location attribution pertains to where the cards were produced - not who consumed and/or commissioned them, which is not irrelevant. And at all events, does a difference of 5 years really matter, especially when its "circa"?

If any of your other comments have anything to do with how the Courtly Household/Hofämterspiel deck might have influenced Marziano ( the name of this thread and the entirety of my current inquiry : the potential of which type of German luxury deck ended up in Milan and why), please, point the way.

Phaeded

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

#314
1450-1455 makes a difference, if one considers the life of Ladislaus postumus. I think we got the info about Ladislaus and Hofämterspiel in 2003 from ...

Ludica. Ludica, annali di storia e civiltà del gioco, 2,1996. Fondazione Benetton Studi Ricerche/Viella
between others .... BARBARA HOLLÄNDER, Das Ambraser Hofämterspiel
the book also contained .... Gherardo Ortalli, the Prince and the playing cards

It's also here, "Die Dame im Spiel" by Ulrike Wörner
https://books.google.de/books?id=oeQxUX ... el&f=false

Maria Raid: Das Ambraser Hofämterspiel ... at page 20
https://www.netzwerk-mode-textil.de/ima ... 8_raid.pdf
Image



... gives the info, that Barbara Holländer indeed favoured South-West of Germany and others favoured Vienna as place of the production of the deck. Checking the short biography reports of Ladislaus it seems, that he was in his late years not very often in Prague, but more in Ofen or Buda (Hungary, nowadays joined with Pest to Budapest). The last year he was in Prague, but this was not the assumed year of the production.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

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

#315
Huck wrote:
14 Jun 2020, 08:04
1450-1455 makes a difference, if one considers the life of Ladislaus postumus.
For the purposes of this thread - Re: What are the documents for Marziano's dates? [died c. 1422)] - it could't matter less. Or are you going to posit an early version of the Hofämterspiel and that in turn had plausible reasons for being in Milan at the time Marziano wrote his tractatus (as I did with the Stuttgart type deck)? Instead you did one of your classic data dumps on extraneous subjects, drawing zero links to Marziano.

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

#316
Phaeded wrote:
14 Jun 2020, 17:35
For the purposes of this thread - Re: What are the documents for Marziano's dates? [died c. 1422)]
As you know, this is now absolutely confirmed as between 25 July 1424 and 31 January 1425. Given that a hearing in a lawsuit against him is happening on 1 February 1425, with his heir Stefano Gentile as defendant, it would appear that he died at least some weeks before 31 January 1425.
Image

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

#317
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:
14 Jun 2020, 18:57
Phaeded wrote:
14 Jun 2020, 17:35
For the purposes of this thread - Re: What are the documents for Marziano's dates? [died c. 1422)]
As you know, this is now absolutely confirmed as between 25 July 1424 and 31 January 1425. Given that a hearing in a lawsuit against him is happening on 1 February 1425, with his heir Stefano Gentile as defendant, it would appear that he died at least some weeks before 31 January 1425.
Thanks Ross - I referred to the date in your book as a quick search couldn't find the new date. Of course the question to Huck remains the same - why the Hofämterspiel and Marziano? At least the Stuttgart only comes 5 years after Marziano's death and good reason to think hunting decks - Stuttgart or Ambras - were spurred by the Albertus Magnus hunting treatise translation into German in 1404 - allowing 8 years for hunting card production in the 'upper Rhine'/Swabia, and gift-giving to the Filippo on the occasion of his accession (and Count Eberhard's second marriage in the same year).

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

#318
Some additional info, but first of all, let me say my primary point is there is a likelihood a German luxury deck in Milan due to intermarriage with German princes, IF German luxury decks were being produced pre-1412, which is not an unreasonable assumption. Furthermore, both the Stuttgart and Ambras decks feature a banner for the 10 card, and in the Stuttgart all of the kings hold banners….therefore the premise that Marziano’s deck’s King – clearly not part of the court cards of heroum – took the top spot of the suit’s pips in each suit.

As for the Wurttermberg connection, the salient points were:
• Their coat of arms of antlers seemingly matches that of the horizontal antlers of the suit of stags’ Queen (the highest court card of that all female suit) and the banner/ten card.
• The male and female suits seem to prefigure the CY’s expansion of the court cards to 3 males and 3 females, which merely points to the presence of a Stuttgart like deck in Milan.
• Marziano uses all birds for his suits and both the Stuttgart and Ambras feature birds among their suits. I’ve yet to read of a description of another deck that early that featured birds.
Regarding the first point, it is important to reiterate the hypothetical deck in Milan c. 1412 would not match the c. 1430 Stuttgart deck in all its details. If the suits livery and banner symbols did point towards vassalage of the commissioner in c. 1430 it would have reflected very different circumstances from what prevailed in in 1412.

Having stated those caveats, let’s assume for argument’s sake that the suit of stags was primarily blue in both decks. There is a fief whose coat of arms is a stag with swept antlers on a blue field – like in the Stuttgart - which came into control of the Württemberg in the 14th century: Sigmaringen, about 70 kms due south of Stuttgart and 40 north of Konstanz - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmaringen . In 1325 the city was sold to Ulrich III, Count of Württemberg. In 1399, the Count of Württemberg granted the castle and county of Sigmaringen to his uncle and liegeman Count Eberhard III von Werdenberg-Trochtelfingen (1387–1416) as a fief. Today the background of the stag is red, but as late as the 17th century it was blue, per this coat of arms of a cadet branch of the Hohenzollern who later obtained that fief (whose arms are the checkered black/white with which the blue/gold-stag are quartered):

Sigmaring-Hohenzollern wappen.jpg
Sigmaring-Hohenzollern wappen.jpg (36.48 KiB) Viewed 366 times

If the c. 1430 Stuttgart reflects its various vassal states of either brother who split the rule of the county at that time (perhaps the suits’ symbols were stripped down to the point of heraldic unintelligibility, to focus on aspects of the hunt), then the deer’s antlers would merely resonate with the arms of the Württemberg but would in fact be those of a vassal fief, again, Sigmaringen. It does not connect to the Visconti, but merely shows a possible link between the Württemberg and the Stuttgart deck, a type of which I posit gifted to Milan in c. 1412. I would point out if hunting decks were inspired by the Albertus Magnus De animalbus German translation of 1404 it is relevant that the subject of Book VIII.2.1 is “the prudence of various animals, especially the deer”, so a suit of stags in connection with one of the court suits may have been deemed appropriate.

Assuming a Württemberg deck gifted to Visconti in 1412, with the suits reflecting domains important to Württemberg, we might turn to those four coats of arms hanging over Eberhard III’s council room per the c. 1400 painting of the same:
Eberhard III and his council - detail..JPG
Eberhard III and his council - detail..JPG (19.71 KiB) Viewed 366 times
These four arms are, left to right:
1. Württemberg
2. Teck (the last descendent of this family was Louis of Teck, Patriarch of Aquileia since 1412, died in 1439, succeeded by none other than Trevisan, one of the heroes of Anghiari). These coat of arms of checkered lozengy are very similar to the House of Wittelsbach, but are black/gold, not white-silver/blue (as used by BMW, for instance).
3. Visconti
4. Burgraviate of Nuremberg (Nuremberg is often referred to as having been the 'unofficial capital' of the Holy Roman Empire, particularly because Imperial Diets (Reichstage) and courts met at Nuremberg Castle. John III, Burgrave of Nuremberg (from the House of Hohenzollern) had a daughter, Elisabeth (1391–1429), who married Eberhard III, Count of Württemberg in 1412, after Antonia Visconti died in 1405, but obviously the two German families were already closely beforehand).

The House of Württemberg had a predilection for “fourfold” like Marziano for their coat of arms, for when the county was elevated to a duchy in 1495 the arms were quartered on the armorial shield showing Württemberg, Teck, County of Mömpelgard (modern-day Montbéliard, gifted to Eberhard III’’s eldest son) and fourthly a symbol of the Holy Roman Empire: a blue field on which a flying standard depicting a black eagle on a field of gold (perhaps this replaced the stag on the same blue field of Sigmaringen – not sure why else a blue field here). Duchy of Württemberg Coat of arms adopted in 1495:
Image

Although the biscione is shown here in Eberhard III’s council room, would a hunting deck have featured a snake when there were other Visconti imprese to choose from? Obviously the turtledove – which would have been hunted since not a raptor – would have been an equally bad choice. But let’s keep in mind that Eberhard III, Count of Württemberg had married Bernabo Visconti’s daughter, and it was Bernabo who used a white Italian greyhound as a personal impresa, as found on the monumental equestrian statue - on the dress of the allegorical figure of Fortitude that flanks him (Sforza revived this impresa as his own, no doubt impressed by this monumental statue and a warrior Visconti he could emulate, not Filippo). Even if the Marziano deck has nothing to do with Agnese del Maino, the theory that Bernabo lent this family his personal symbol as their coat of arms is still valid; was the House of Württemberg also extended the use of that impresa at the time of the Count’s wedding to Antonia Visconti in 1380? Below we see the greyhound on a red background of the Mayno (del Maino) arms found in the Stemmario Trivulziano, on Bernabos’s equestrian statue, and the Stuttgart banner/ten card in the suit of hounds, also on a red background:

Image

One could then argue the banner of the c. 1430 deck was a detail carried over from the c. 1412 deck, although one might also argue by 1430 the card-playing deck had become progressively generic, just as in other post-Visconti-Decks where family imprese become less and less common.

There is an obvious objection here, however, in that the dog impresa was not used by Filippo nor apparently by his father Giangaleazzo, who pushed out Bernabo and had him killed. And yet there has been a relevant argument made by Kirsch that when Giangaleazzo controlled only part of the duchy from Pavia, ruling jointly with his uncle Bernabo, that he did not even use the biscione. Only Bernabo used it - as featured on the breast plate of the same equestrian statue of Bernabo – until Bernabo was out of the way. When the Visconti Hours were produced for Giangaleazzo we do find the white dog with collar with a tree rising from beyond the middle of it (two other dogs – neither white - emerge behind said tree) – just as on Bernabo’s statue (and Sfora’s later adaptation) – nuzzling up towards a medallion bust portrait of Giangaleazzo, no doubt indicating Bernabo’s portion of the duchy is now loyal to him as a dog. Kirsh/Meiss remark on this “most exquisitively painted and best preserved” of the hour leaves by way of this question: “Why Giangaleazzo’s portrait appears in the midst of this Psalm (CXVIII) is not apparent” (1972, BR115). What the leaf primarily shows is enthroned David surrounded by four biscione shields, with God holding the orb of rulership (smallish, upper right of the spiraling circle inset with fleur-de-lys [so after Valentina’s 1389 marriage to the Duke or Orleans], nearly top the far right column). At the top of the leaf is a radiate “a droyt” – not even the ‘bon’ here. Clearly everything here has to do with power and rulership, which speaks to wresting away the previous shared rulership with Bernabo.

Image
The same collared white dog sits next to the throne of David and before the figure of Fortitude in Visconti Hours folio BR 120v that seems to confirm this motif does refer to the Fortitude with dog on the monumental statue of Benarbo. Also on center bottom of folio BR 145 the collared white dog appears again, surrounded by a nimbus of oak leaves and 17 acorns – the number of his children; the acorns no doubt a reference to the Visconti genealogies which feature oak leaves tying the generations together.

Finally, Psalm 118 - that Meiss/Kirsh found puzzling - itself couldn’t speak any clearer as the mission of this warrior-prince, ruling like David with God's backing - a droyt:


5 The LORD is with me; I will not be afraid.
What can mere mortals do to me?
7 The LORD is with me; he is my helper.
I look in triumph on my enemies.
8 It is better to take refuge in the LORD
than to trust in humans.
9 It is better to take refuge in the LORD
than to trust in princes.
10 All the nations surrounded me,
but in the name of the LORD I cut them down.
11 They surrounded me on every side,
but in the name of the LORD I cut them down….

At all events, a gift of a hunting deck to the son of this hunting-crazy duke (and note the stags to the right in the same leaf) would have seemed perfectly natural.

Phaeded

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

cron