In other words, I don't know if it helps me yet, at least in developing my theory.

It's not the condition of information to help build theories ... ... they're there to remind, that a reality once existed. Either theories survive the input of new information or they don't.

********

We've for Bologna in 1417 a new cardinal, Cesarini.

He founded 1417 a St. Jerome institution, a model, about which he probably had learned in Germany during the council of Constance. It served in Germany and Burgundy already a longer time as school and for education, starting as a general "reading movement" (also for poor boys) in Deventer, but getting distributed to many other locations. Cesarini's engagement is directed against gambling tendencies of the youth. He offers alternative occupations, between these theater playing, mostly in the form of sacra rappresantazione. For this exists the confirmation, that a text book of this congregation was found (dated ca 1450 or a little later) which included many plays.

It''s not known to us, when this theater activity in Bologna started, but we have 1424 Alberti (as student) writing the Philodoxus and having later close connections to Cesarini. Also there are other theater activities in Bologna recorded for ca. 1435 and we have many theater activities in the 20's in Venice (this according not enough research to this point, probably one would find more material with some more focus and patience).

As Bologna was a city with many students, we probably have to interpret this information in the university context.

Alberti's Philodoxus is NOT a sacra rappresantazione, but obviously a reflection on the recent import of Greek literature to Italy - so a little bit "half pagan". Alberti gives as author an old antique author Lepidus and creates the illusion, that Lepidus wrote the work. Analyzing this behavior it seems plausible, that Alberti feared, that it might be a little dangerous to his own person, if he publicly reveals, that he's the author himself ...

1423 San Bernardino preaches against a lot of things
1424 Alberti writes the Philodoxus

.. we would understand the problem.

The text itself has 20 scenes and it uses 20 persons, partly as real actors, partly as wordless statists and partly only as "names".
After realizing the feature of "20 scenes / 20 persons", the question arose, if it was possible to give each person a scene and if the result would give a "somehow pleasant order". This attempt was successful, though one might wish to discuss it in detail.

The general order is:

3 pairs (2 of them marry, 1 is already married)
with
4 parents (of the 2 pairs which marry)
-----------
10 other persons: Tychia (Fortuna) and Chronus (Time) with accompanying persons

As I had it ..

1: Climarchus, the barber (left neighbour to Doxia) - is given only by the scene background (3 houses), the scene is dominated by Phroneus
2: Diotinus, the freedman of Tychia (Tychia-group) (right neighbour to Doxia) - promises to help Philodoxos
3: Dynastes, the slave of Tychia (Tychia group) - tries to arrange that Fortunius gets Doxia
4: Philodoxos (pair - male) - on a triumphal march
5: Fortunius (pair male) - disturbs the good hopes of Philodoxos)
6: Phroneus (pair male) - tricks Fortunius to visit another triumphal march
7: Phimia (pair-female) - only scene with Phimia (Fame), she cares for the good name and the reputation
8: Doxia (pair female) - Philodoxos declares his love to Doxiain a monolog
9: Argos (parent - father Philodoxos) - Philodoxos spies the talking of the slaves (Argos has 100 eyes)
10: Minerva (parent - mother Philodoxos) - Philodoxos shows further details of his character
11: Autadia (parent - mother Fortunius) - Fortunius shows his arrogance
12: Thraso (parent - father Fortunius) - Fortunius makes his crime, he robs Phimia)
13: Mnimia (pair female)
14: (Chronos - Chronos-group) - 1st appearance of Chronos
15: (Alithia - Chronos-group) - Alithia is called here by her real identity: daughter of Chronos, guarded by Mnimia
16: Bailiff - Chronos-group - only scene with him, in search for the criminal
17: Calilogus - Chronos-group - only scene with him, documents the criminal case
18: Volipedia - Tychia-group - only scene with him, attempts to keep Fortunius away
19: (Tychia - Tychia group) - last appearance of Tychia, she's successful to excuse Fortunius
20: Trumpeter - only scene with him, successful and lucky finish

One of the interesting parts it is, that the final scene is given to the trumpeter - a logical place. The trumpeter signals, that the play is over.
The 14 Bembo cards have the trumpeter (= judgment) as last card. The Bolognese card row has the trumpeter as last card. The Florentine last trump Fame has a trumpet.

Ross wrote: If someone finds evidence of carte da trionfi before then, It'll demand a rethink.
If early 1439, I will be bemused.
If 1438, I will be somewhat puzzled.
If 1437, surprised.
If 1436, astounded.
If 1435, shocked.
If 1434, dumbfounded.
If 1433 or earlier, floored.
I'm sure I'll survive, though.

... ... for the reality of Marcello's perspective, he called the Michelino deck a ludus triumphorum in 1449. And the Michelino deck - all what we can suggest - we have a considered production time of 1418 - 1425 with some preference for "around 1425".
Nice, that you've promised to survive, but you can't really be surprised, as you translated the text yourself ...

It's true, that we have evidence for a first use of the term "trionfi" in relation to playing cards for February 1442 ... if we are allowed to take this as "first" or "at least 5 years near to the first (as you suggest)" use of the name, this tells us something, especially in relation to the Michelino deck:

Objects could exist, but get a signifying dominant name (in this case "trionfi cards" or similar) later.

Actually we can observe in the same time an interest in the "Trionfi" poem of Petrarca with a natural peak in 1441,
indicated by the first known production of an illustrated Trionfi edition for Piero de Medici.

The coincidence might be enough to conclude, that a contemporary interest ("Trionfi as poem of Petrarca") caused, that an already known and somehow similar object ("playing card decks with unusual structure and iconography") also got the name "Trionfi" ... similar "naming behavior" is probably observable in many other developments, also in modern time (after "television" became a word, we soon had ..

television announcer
television antenna
television broadcast
television broadcasting
television cable
television camera
television commercial

... etc.)

If you meant your "range of 5 years" alone for the name ... this might be quite okay. But the real object is the development of the game and deck, not the name.

My theory on the other hand, with an interpretation of the Bolognese sequence, demands a date between late 1439 and mid-1441.

[/quote]

What fixes your theory at "late 1439"?

We have at 1.1.1441 no note of Trionfi cards, the term is not used. Likely the term was developed by the Caryy-Yale production for the marriage in October 1441.

In "late 1439" are events in Florence, the greater part of the council is finished.

What are your ideas to this point?

Thanks for the responses, Huck.

I'll be back in about an hour - France is playing New Zealand.

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:Thanks for the responses, Huck.

I'll be back in about an hour - France is playing New Zealand.

... with hands or feet?
... ... with the hands bound to their backs ... ??

Huck wrote:

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:Thanks for the responses, Huck.

I'll be back in about an hour - France is playing New Zealand.

... with hands or feet?
... ... with the hands bound to their backs ... ??

Rugby.

We just lost - 39-12 (really showed our weaknesses, so a good learning match).

Marco should be happy. His team Italy beat Samoa 24-14 - and Italy is considered the weakest team in the Six Nations.

Huck wrote: What fixes your theory at "late 1439"?

We have at 1.1.1441 no note of Trionfi cards, the term is not used. Likely the term was developed by the Caryy-Yale production for the marriage in October 1441.

In "late 1439" are events in Florence, the greater part of the council is finished.

What are your ideas to this point?

The date 1437 is suggested by the trend of the evidence as plotted on the chart. Taken as a whole, some other evidence should show up within 5 years of 1442 (exclusive, so 1437-1441). If you go beyond that, you are just guessing - using other considerations than the trend of the known evidence. I take the name "Triumph cards" and "game of Triumphs" to really indicate a specific thing, different from any other kind of cards or game. So the name and the thing are coincident, and the game and cards are not possibly something else that just got a new name within 5 years of 1442, that everybody decided to adopt. Rather, everybody got the name with the thing.

My theory tries to interpret the trump sequences among the possible candidates, to find the one I think is most likely correct, and by that interpretation, to get a more precise date. Obviously, it is difficult to get people to follow all of my reasoning, and hence to accept my conclusions, but I like it best so far. The only thing I'm dogmatic about is the dating business, not my theory. I've used a good method to get that dating range, while others only use guesses - I think my method is an improvement on guessing.

Part of my reasoning comes down to the figure on the Chariot card, whether male or female. I take Charles VI and Catania as the closest to the original A type, which is later represented rather similarly in printed types like Rosenwald and, of course, Bologna's Tarots to this day. So there is a continuity.

The VM, VS, and Issy Chariot (all young women) have no printed relations - they seem to be a dead end. The B and C printed traditions seem to have no relationship to these luxury cards. I call them "courtly". So my distinction is between a courtly tradition, which highly emphasized females, and a different kind of tradition, perhaps "republican", which did not. I reckoned that it was more likely for courts to adapt these "republican" cards to a courtly ideal, than the other way around - taking the women (like the Chariot figure) out of the deck and making it into a triumphant male warrior.

So I left Ferrara and Milan and was left with Florence and Bologna. Distinguishing between Florence and Bologna rested mainly on the equal-papi rule, which I interpret as a pragmatic "realpolitik" view of the world, with no particular allegiance to some static ideal of papal supremacy in the hierarchy. Given Bologna's history, particularly their relationship with the papacy in the first half of the 15th century, it seemed an obvious choice that Bologna would be more apt to consider the political games of Pope and Empire (and everybody else) in a cynical way.

Bologna had other reasons to be cynical - Pope Eugene used Bologna to raise money by promising them the Council - 30,000 ducats in a little over a year. But he betrayed Bologna by sneaking out in the middle of the night to Ferrara in January 1438 - it seems the Bolognese really didn't know that he had arranged for the Council to be in Ferrara.

So, within months, Eugene's enemy, Visconti, represented by Piccinino, was let into the city. Visconti declared them no longer bound to the Pope. But Pope Eugene was not formally deposed by the Council of Basel until June 1439 (although he had been "suspended" by the Council since January 1438). Visconti had the order of deposition posted in the city. Still, Basel's Pope was not elected until November 1439.

So, if the two popes of the "papi" card represent two real claimants in a real-world situation, then it has to be late 1439 at the earliest, and probably better early 1440.

But what about the two Emperors? Sigmund had died in December 1437, just before he could mediate between Basel and Eugene, and before he could participate in the Council of Ferrara. The electors quickly chose Albert to replace him - he showed great promise, but died suddenly in October 1439 (he had never been crowned Emperor either). Albert's successor Frederick III was not chosen for four months. We have in Sigmund a somehow mythic figure, around whom great promises swirled, at least in Germany, for the reform of the Empire and the Church. Frederick III's "myth" was already built in, by his name. So I see the situation with the two Emperors not as two literal Emperors, but as the "musical chairs" game of changing Emperors and the general fighting among the Electors - which ended decisively with Frederick's election - more or less, Frederick moved slowly to accept it, and to be crowned King.

Thus the latest date should be mid-1440, if the ups and downs of German politics are represented in the two Emperors. In any case, they are all equal in Bologna - a Pope can take an Emperor, and an Emperor a Pope - I think this is a compelling and real view of the world.

I also think this view of the world is more likely in Bologna than Florence at this time, since the Council was actually in session, under Eugene, in Florence! The Pope, and the city, were triumphant here.

more to come...

As far I'm informed (or better I say remember), we have had (once ? or ever ?) in Florence 5 Papi as an expression for the 5 lowest trumps, and 5 Aires for the 5 highest. Another name was Rossi for 5 other cards (?).

You tell now something about 4 Papi in Bologna probably based on Dummett and McLeod, which I don't know.
Can you give some info about this?

Huck wrote:As far I'm informed (or better I say remember), we have had (once ? or ever ?) in Florence 5 Papi as an expression for the 5 lowest trumps, and 5 Aires for the 5 highest. Another name was Rossi for 5 other cards (?).

More or less right. We know only of Florentine practice from Minchiate rules, where these terms apply. These are known only from the late 17th century.

One of the original papi has been removed from Minchiate, so the "Papi" are Papa Uno (=Bagato) to Papa Cinque (=Love). They are all numbered, and there is no hint that any "equal papi" rule was ever used in Minchiate.

The "reds" (rossi) are eight cards - XXXIII (Leo) to the end, (XL) Trombe.

In Bologna, only the Moon and Sun are "reds".

You tell now something about 4 Papi in Bologna probably based on Dummett and McLeod, which I don't know.
Can you give some info about this?

What was it that you didn't know? As far as the Bolognese rules are known, from the late 16th century to today, the equal-papi rule exists (although of course they were forced to change to "mori" in 1725). It is actually first attested, or dated, in Piscina's text of 1565. He is writing from Piedmont, where the equal-papi rule and the high Angel rule were apparently universally observed in the 18th century (the earliest time we can know anything about Piedmontese rules). That is, the Piedmont deck has the Tarot de Marseille order with printed numbers on each card, but they rank XX, Judgement, above XXI, World (and accord it 5 points, while the World gets nothing). This is still the universal practice wherever the game is played in Piedmont, according to Dummett and McLeod. The equal-papi rule (still using the Tarot de Marseille ordered Piedmont-style decks) has slowly eroded and was last attested in Nice in 1930, but remains in the Asti region.

My reasoning is that Bologna is a conservative tradition. The iconography of the earliest luxury A types (Charles VI, Catania) is clearly related to the printed A types, including Bologna til today. This is in contrast to the Milanese and Ferrara luxury cards, which don't seem to have any printed relations. The continuity and stability of Bologna's iconography makes me trust that stubborn features of the game rules also go back to that time - that is, the earliest period, so why not the beginning? Anyway, this is what I believe.

Huck, I've posted more Bologna considerations if you are interested in the Bolognese thread I opened up a few months ago in the Unicorn Terrace -
viewtopic.php?f=12&p=5143#p5143

Hi Huck. I'm back. I will leave the big questions to you and Ross. Meanwhile I am ready with more on the 6 added cards, if you still remember that discussion. I was away from my computer for a few days. I am addressing my comments to your posts of pre-November 26.

Huck wrote:

In 1465 Francesco Sforza was living and Florence not in revolutionary conditions ... you should differentiate the situation of May 1465 and of summer 1466. In May 1465 Lorenzo was a guest in Borso's house and treated with great politeness.

First, on Borso's relationship to Francesco: here is Vincente Ilarde, in Dispatches of the Milanese Ambassadors, Vol. 3, p. xli. After explaining why the Venetian Pope went against Venice and supported Galeazzo's succession to Francesco in March of 1466, he says,

In reality, aside from Duke Borso d'Este of Modena, whose long-standing anti-Sforza stance was well known, only two other states pursued a hostile policy towards Milan--Venice and Savoy.

Since he is focusing on 1466, Ilard does not go into Borso's previous anti-Sforza stance. Looking in the diplomatic dispatches themselves, I see Prospero da Camogli (a Milanese ambassador) to Cicco Simonetta, 1461, talking about the covert alliance of

...the Pope, the Dauphin, the Duke of Burgundy, the Duke of Milan, King Edward, the Earl of Warwick, on one side, the King of France, King Henry of England and his Queen, the king of Sicily [King Rene], the Duke of Savoy, Duke John, the Duke of Modena on the other

(Vol 2, p. 420f). The point of the list is to suggest how far-flung the division into opposing camps had spread. The names of the parties are in code.

I found a book about Ferrara, this one from 1904, Dukes and Poets in Ferrara, by Gardner. On p.100 he talks about Borso's relationship with both the Sforza and the Medici:

"The accession of the Sforza to the throne of Milan, and their alliance with the Medici, caused a new grouping among the great powers of the peninsula; Milan, Florence, and Naples now formed a triple alliance, which was to some extent counterbalanced by the rapprochement between Rome and Venice. Borso had much to hope and something to fear from the two latter powers, and his sympathies were all against the triple alliance. His relations with Naples and its new sovereign were no longer what they had been in the days of the mighty Alfonso. Nor was there much love lost between the House of Este and those comparatively upstart Medicean rulers of Florence.

Gardner then goes on to describe how in support of the conspiracy against Pietro, Borso "dispatched a strong force of horse and foot under Ercole," and when the plot failed "received Diotisalvi Neroni and Giovanni Francesco Strozzi in Ferrara." Later, in April 1467 he went to Venice incognito to persuade the Doge to have Colleoni "put at the service of the exiles."

For more on Borso's relationship to the Medici, there is The Bentivoglio of Bologna, by C. M. Ady, p. 62f:

In October 1465 Giovanni Bentivoglio wrote to Francesco Sforza that he had heard from a most reliable source of a secret agreement by which Colleone would be dismisssed from Venetian service in the following spring, and would then appear in Bolognese territory with a large force in order to make an attempt on the city in conjunction with the Bolognese exiles. (Footnote: A.S.M. [Archivio de Stato, Milano] Romagna, B168. For Colleone's agreement with Venice and Ferrara, see Belotti, La vita di Bartolomeo Colleone, pp. 325, 335, 345.) He was right about the agreement with Venice, and it soon became evident that Borso d'Este of Ferrara was also a party to Colleone's plans. Between them it was arranged that the death of Francesco Sforza should be the signal for an enterprise which aimed at the overthrow not only of the Bentivoglio regime in Bologna, but that of the Medici in Florence. Giovanni Bentivoglio got news of what was afoot in time to warn Piero dei Medici and to prevent his being surprised by Ferrarese troops sent to trap him at Careggi. He also mustered a contingent of infantry from the Bolgnese Apennines, together with some Milanese cavalry, and hurried them across the mountains for Piero dei Medici's defense. Thus the attack upon the Medici government was frustrated at the outset, and the timely assistance rendered by Giovanni Bentivoglio contributed not a little to its failure. (Footnote: Bianchini, Cronaca Bolognese, f. 13; Ghirardacci, [Della Historia di Bologna, 1669, ed. Sorbelli], Pt. III, p. 182.)

So about when Borso was hosting Lorenzo in Ferrara, he apparently was secretly plotting his family's downfall!

Huck wrote:

This specific pope Paul had one very big interest and this was money.

On why the Pope gave Borso his title of hereditary duke of Ferrara, my source is Tuohy, Herculean Ferrara (in Google Books), p. 13:

Borso was ultimately successful in his ambition, and his progress to Rome and investiture with the ducal insignia at the hands of Pope Paul II was to prove his apotheosis. But Ercole's role in leading the Ferrarese forces in support of Venice and a Venetian Pope was at least partly instrumental in achieving this aim, and it was fitting that he should in turn enjoy the benefit.

By "prove his apotheosis" Tuohy means that in going to Rome he contracted the illness that killed him. Some said poisoning, both of him and of the Pope. I notice that Tuohy cites Gardner, whom I just quoted, with approval regarding Ercole's military career and some other details about Borso's investiture.

It appears from these sources that Borso's first loyalty, besides to himself, was to the Papacy, so as to get the hereditary investiture, if possible with the aid of Venice and without endangering that relationship. He was against both the Sforza and the Medici, and the Bentvoliglio as well, although secretly until the right moment. Once again, the evidence that I am able to find suggests that Borso would not have done anything to help further the Medici or Sforza causes, such as an appropriate group of cards.

I also see that my idea that Borso is the man on the Fortitude card is pretty absurd, considering all the plotting that he engaged in about what to take from Milan, and the Medici, after Francesco's death (and including maybe Galeazzo's imprisonment by the Savoyards), and that even as early as October of 1465 the Sforza knew about it. Could it be Niccolo then? I have to find his pictures.