Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:Sorry I can't make an offer on this undoubtedly lovely book.
But Steve, can you tell us what Samek Ludovici (or whoever) says about the date 1415?
I can't find any reference to the date 1415: Ludovic gives as a terminus post quem the date 1428, based upon the Visonti and Savoy crests in the love card, which he associates with the marriage of Filippo's marriage to Maria di Savoia in 1428: "Added to this evidence is the gold coin struck by Filipo Maria, shown in the numbered cards of the first series (coins) and the second series (in both numbered and figured cards)*. This aureo, published by Argelati, appears to be traced or printed in the gilded, incised background of the card." The third series he dates 'no earlier than 1441 or later than 1447', based upon the marriage of Sforza to Bianca in 1441 and the death of the Duke in 1447. He mentions Decembrio's reference to Martiano in his biography of the Duke but doesn't mention any dates in reference to that.
The three series defined by Ludovic are
1st the Modroni
2nd the Brambilla
3rd the Colleoni (in the Bergamo / Morgan collection)
Excellent Steve, thanks!
So what are the scenarios for the error? Let's see -
A typographical error in the original Italian edition - perhaps corrected in an errata slip at the back, or not.
Or - simply a typo in Douglas' original book.
From your account, it looks as if the error was silently corrected in the English edition, published *after* Douglas' book.
If the "Visconti Sforza" wedding reference in Goldman Eller is related to Douglas, then I think the easiest explanation is that "1441" somehow became "1415", by a transposition of one number, and a change of the other from 4 to 5.
Quite a mistake! It's a shame it got any currency at all, and I hope it is one of the things that Douglas corrects in his new edition, since his book is popular.
A similar typo must have happened with the date for Charles VI - there was a popular belief that the so-called "Charles VI" cards were the cards mentioned in a lost record of 1392
. Evidently somebody put the number "1" in place of "9"; perhaps Goldman Eller, or her source.
Can someone give the whole passage from Douglas relating to the early history, since I don't have this book and it is not available to view on google books or amazon?