Re: John Shephard - Goldschmidt tarot

#21
mikeh wrote: As far as the cards being of Burgundian style, I don't think you can go by that, Huck. There was much artistic exchange and imitation between Lombardy, that part of France, and Flanders in the second half of the 15th century. These nobles had a certain sophistication from their travels, too: Savoy, Milan, Naples, and all the people Anne of Brittany brought to her court.

Added later: There are a couple of things about the cards above that are reminiscent more of the Cary-Yale than the PMB. The card with the bishop (and fleur-de-lys) has the same general layout as the "Hope" card, i.e. a standing figure reaching up for a symbol of hope. The anchor is even on the CY card, although at the bottom rather than the top. Secondly, the motif of having same-sex attendants to the main figure, as on both the kneeler and castle cards, is more characteristic of the Cary-Yale than other decks, as seen in the Emperor, Empress, Kings, and Queens. Perhaps Charlotte had a copy, from Maria of Savoy. Or the card really is 1450s and really does portray Louis as a teenager. But somehow the style looks a lot later.
I personally think, that the two head decorations of the female servants look "Flemish", but I'm really not an expert for costumes and my evaluation has not much worth in this case.

That, what really counts, seems to be the "crowned dolphin" ... and this has two possible meanings. One connecting to king Louis XI and his time in Genappe 1456-61, the other to a rather unknown Conte Ludovico II Tizzone near Vercelli in Desana, possibly of some importance in the year 1512.

Well, we cannot rely, that only high noble houses produced Trionfi cards. We have enough documents about various Trionfi card productions ... they can't have had all very important commissioners.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: John Shephard - Goldschmidt tarot

#22
Huck wrote,
I personally think, that the two head decorations of the female servants look "Flemish", but I'm really not an expert for costumes and my evaluation has not much worth in this case.
Well, that is an interesting idea, worth pursuing. It does seem to be true of works by Rogier van der Weyden; he did in fact dress his women like that (e.g. at http://www.uvm.edu/~hag/sca/15th/). But Flanders is not far from Brittany, Anjou, and the Loire Valley. Maybe we just haven't looked at, or don't have, paintings of women done there. It has to be established that Flemish painters were unique in painting women in that fashion. As I said, Flemish/Burgundian styles became fashionable in art everywhere, even Italy, starting in the 1450s and expanding after that.

Huck wrote,
That, what really counts, seems to be the "crowned dolphin" ... and this has two possible meanings. One connecting to king Louis XI and his time in Genappe 1456-61, the other to a rather unknown Conte Ludovico II Tizzone near Vercelli in Desana, possibly of some importance in the year 1512.
Why not also Charles VIII, who was Dauphin 1470-1484? And ex-Dauphin after that (after he was crowned), until his death in 1498? Or the wives of any of these, the Dauphines?

Re: John Shephard - Goldschmidt tarot

#23
mikeh wrote: Huck wrote,
That, what really counts, seems to be the "crowned dolphin" ... and this has two possible meanings. One connecting to king Louis XI and his time in Genappe 1456-61, the other to a rather unknown Conte Ludovico II Tizzone near Vercelli in Desana, possibly of some importance in the year 1512.
Why not also Charles VIII, who was Dauphin 1470-1484? And ex-Dauphin after that (after he was crowned), until his death in 1498? Or the wives of any of these, the Dauphines?
The general practical idea with the Dauphine and also with the Prince of Wales had been to give the future rulers of France and England some opportunity to train some of their later functions. This training was of use for the later Louis XI, but of no use for Charles VIII, who already became French king with 13 years (ruler with 21).

I don't know it for sure, but I would doubt, that Charles VIII spend much time in Dauphine ... in contrast to his father Louis, who really had reigning function in Dauphine till 1456.
I doubt, that Anne of France in her regency (1483-1491) left her brother Charles out of her control ... actually there were were early attempts of the outside to get the young king captured and cause a revolution, as far I remember (Mad War).

And Charles didn't show much talent for a ruler.
I personally would exclude this possibility.

*************

According the lists of Arnold Esch and his 107 Trionfi card notes between 1453-1465 we have, that there are at least 3 Flemish traders involved in the import of playing cards and Trionfi cards.
From the rest the most seem to be related to Florence.

Arnold Esch expresses his personal view, that the Flemish playing card traders in Rome might have imported Flemish Trionfi cards, which would lead according that, what we generally know from old documents, to a rather revolutionary thesis.
But it isn't impossible.

Burgundy is (1453-1465) at its height for European power and likely also trade with Italy. This big influence is lost with the year 1477 and the death of Charles the bold. The influence is passed to the heirs of Burgundy, France and Habsburg, both definitely strong factors in the following time in Italy.

We have connected to Burgundy the great Flemish playing card production in Tournay since 1427, which is running there till the begin of 16th century and then wanders to Antwerp. This is rather well documented, as it seems.

Also we have a great past of the region in the production of early woodcuts.

What we likely haven't, that are many examples of the Flemish produced decks in 15th century.

Image

The Metropolian Museum of Art informs:
"The Cloisters set of fifty-two cards constitutes the only known complete deck of illuminated ordinary playing cards (as opposed to tarot cards) from the fifteenth century. There are four suits, each consisting of a king, a queen, a knave, and ten pip cards. The suit symbols, based on equipment associated with the hunt, are hunting horns, dog collars, hound tethers, and game nooses. The value of the pip cards is indicated by appropriate repetitions of the suit symbol. The figures, which appear to be based on Franco-Flemish models, were drawn with a bold, free, and engaging, if somewhat unrefined, hand. Their exaggerated and sometimes anachronistic costumes suggest a lampoon of extravagant Burgundian court fashions. Although some period card games are named, it is not known how they were played. Almost all card games did, however, involve some form of gambling. The condition of the set indicates that the cards were hardly used, if at all. It is possible that they were conceived as a collector's curiosity rather than as a deck for play."

http://trionfi.com/0/j/d/flemishhunting/
Object[edit]

The set of cards is a complete regular set of playing cards, consisting of four suits with a king, queen, jack and ten pip cards. The suits are based on hunting items, consisting of game nooses, hound tethers, horns, and dog collars. It is the only complete set of ordinary playing cards from the fifteenth century.[1] The shown figures display fashion of the era, with short jackets, shortly cut hair and pointy shoes.[2]

The set was most likely made in the Southern Netherlands and Flanders specifically. The set was most likely manufactured between 1470 and 1480. Research on the paper determined that it was made in or before 1450.[2] The first of the two present watermarks originates in France and eastern Flanders and was used between circa 1464 and 1480. The second watermark was used in southern Flanders and the northern Lowlands between circa 1468 and 1479.[3]

The cards are in very good condition, indicating they were used very little or not at all.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemish_Hunting_Deck

***********

The Ambras Hunting deck (c. 1440), the Stuttgarter Jagdspiel (1427-31), the above shown Burgundy Hunting game, the Goldschmidt-Falconer, the Guildhall-Falconer, the falconer in the cards with the Isabella d'Este motto, "Jeger" and "Valkner" also in the Hofämterspiel (1455), birds as suits in the Michelino deck.

The "Hunting-Theme" for expensive cards for nobility circles had been likely similar popular as the Trionfi-theme, perhaüps it's just a matter of lucky accident, that we know some more extant cards in the Trionfi style than we know from the Hunting style.

As far hunting with hawks is considered, Burgundy had a natural first rank (a local hawking tradition), which influenced others. Hawks were exported from Burgundy (Galeazzo got some of them), possibly also playing cards with hunting theme developed here first. The many playing cards at the court of Wencelas (1379-83), half-brother of emperor Charles IV, are the first nobility playing cards we know of. He reigned in the region of Brabant, later part of Burgundy.

This tradition looks not so strong in this report ...
https://books.google.de/books?id=H7VFJA ... dy&f=false

In Klaus Schelle, "Die Sforza" I read, that a Milanese delegation (10 diplomats, 36 servants, at 13th June 1469) searched for a political alliance and and beside that, some hawks.
I remember, that Galeazzo Maria on visit in Florence 1470 had a rather high number of falcons and falconers.

It's reported, that Louis XI in his time in Genappe/Belgium/Burgundy most of his time spend with hunting. Also later as king he was very fond of hunting.

It's said, that English King Edward III (mid 14th century) brought 30 gyrfalcons to his fights on the continent. Then it's said, that the Vikings had gyrfalcons (likely earlier) and I read, that free-living gyrfalcons are mostly in far Northern regions. I read, that the Osman leader Bayezid (around 1400) preferred 6 pairs of gyrfalcons instead a very high sum of money (200.000 ducats or so) as a ransom for a captured Burgundy prince after the lost battle of Nicopolis.
Then, it seems, Burgundy had gyrfalcons. It's said, that white gyrfalcons were preferred and served as presents between kings and princes. Dschingis Khan received gyrfalcons as tributary payment of other clans.

Well, a complex theme.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: John Shephard - Goldschmidt tarot

#24
Huck wrote,
The general practical idea with the Dauphine and also with the Prince of Wales had been to give the future rulers of France and England some opportunity to train some of their later functions. This training was of use for the later Louis XI, but of no use for Charles VIII, who already became French king with 13 years (ruler with 21).

I don't know it for sure, but I would doubt, that Charles VIII spend much time in Dauphine ... in contrast to his father Louis, who really had reigning function in Dauphine till 1456.
I doubt, that Anne of France in her regency (1483-1491) left her brother Charles out of her control ... actually there were were early attempts of the outside to get the young king captured and cause a revolution, as far I remember (Mad War).

And Charles didn't show much talent for a ruler.
I personally would exclude this possibility.
The title was also simply an honorific, when the Dauphin was a minor. Wikipedia writes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dauphin_of_France),

Louis XI, in taking an active role in the Dauphiné, was an exception, one that his father did not welcome, as Wikipedia goes on to say. The falconer in the cards could easily be 13 years old. Putting that image on a card presents a certain picture of the Dauphin, as someone young, still a boy, and not involved in politics. So your argument that Charles VIII was too young and dependent on his elders to be associated with the dolphin of the Dauphiné is not convincing.

Huck wrote,

For more clarity: I take it that there is no actual documentation of the import of Trionfi cards from Flanders during that period, 1453-1465. Is there documentation of the export of Trionfi cards from Florence to Flanders then? If Esch has a personal opinion about Flemish traders in Rome, in what time period and what does he base that on?

Re: John Shephard - Goldschmidt tarot

#25
mikeh wrote: Originally, the Dauphin was personally responsible for the rule of the Dauphiné, which was legally part of the Holy Roman Empire, and which the Emperors, in giving the rule of the province to the French heirs, had stipulated must never be united with France. Because of this, the Dauphiné suffered from anarchy in the 14th and 15th centuries, since the Dauphins were frequently minors or concerned with other matters.
Louis XI, in taking an active role in the Dauphiné, was an exception, one that his father did not welcome, as Wikipedia goes on to say. The falconer in the cards could easily be 13 years old. Putting that image on a card presents a certain picture of the Dauphin, as someone young, still a boy, and not involved in politics. So your argument that Charles VIII was too young and dependent on his elders to be associated with the dolphin of the Dauphiné is not convincing. [/quote]

Inside the earlier theory about the Dauphine dolphin on the card it played a role, that a Milanese painter was 1461 in Burgundy and had a commission of Louis. And Louis had been 1456-61 in Burgundy and was still friendly to it till end of 1464 and 1465 they had war.

The new Dauphin of Dauphine wasn't born then (* in 1470).

The Dörner Institute had stated a "mid 15th century", so something like 1440-1460 or 1433-1467, but not "1483", when the Dauphin had been 13 years old and possibly never had been in the Dauphine.

"1461" would be in the given range.
Huck wrote,
According the lists of Arnold Esch and his 107 Trionfi card notes between 1453-1465 we have, that there are at least 3 Flemish traders involved in the import of playing cards and Trionfi cards.
From the rest the most seem to be related to Florence.

Arnold Esch expresses his personal view, that the Flemish playing card traders in Rome might have imported Flemish Trionfi cards, which would lead according that, what we generally know from old documents, to a rather revolutionary thesis.
But it isn't impossible.
For more clarity: I take it that there is no actual documentation of the import of Trionfi cards from Flanders during that period, 1453-1465. Is there documentation of the export of Trionfi cards from Florence to Flanders then? If Esch has a personal opinion about Flemish traders in Rome, in what time period and what does he base that on?
There are documentations of Flemish traders at the custom office in Rome 1453-1465, who payed the tax for playing cards and also Trionfi cards.

Trionfi card documents are generally rare. You cannot expect, that there is ready some confirming document elsewhere, if you have a document in Rome.

There were not too much playing card tradesr in Rome, and the 3 Flemish belong to the most active. Further there is a fourth and a fifth trader, who often accompanied the 3 Flemish traders and one of them had the name "Tornieri", which sounds like "man from Tournay", the big playing card production center in 15th century in nowadays Belgium.

From the 14 traders, who appear at least in two years during the 13-years-period in Rome, this group of 5 (3 and 2) is a relative big group, a really relevant factor with 46 of totally 107 Trionfi documents from the Roman source.
http://trionfi.com/n/130902/

From all the documents, that we have from 15th century, there are nowhere higher numbers of Trionfi decks involved than in these Roman custom registers.

The Flemish playing card importers play a role there.

When we look at 14th century, then we have the best of all sources at the court of Brabant (later part of Burgundy) 1379-1383.

When we look at 15th century, then we have with the report of Tournay since 1427 perhaps the most details of all production locations.

When we look at the number of extant decks from the early time, then it seems, that there is not much. That's quite a contrast.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: John Shephard - Goldschmidt tarot

#26
Huck wrote
The Dörner Institute had stated a "mid 15th century", so something like 1440-1460 or 1433-1467, but not "1483", when the Dauphin had been 13 years old and possibly never had been in the Dauphine.
Pigment analysis only tells you what ingredients were in the paint in what proportions. You then have to know when that particular combination of ingredients was used by painters, starting date and stopping date. See e.g. http://www.artexpertswebsite.com/scient ... alysis.php. Much more is known than in the 1950s about when certain pigments were used, in as much as more pigment analyses have been done, including of paintings of known execution dates. I really doubt that particular pigments then were obsolete after only 35 years (your suggestion) and not used again, but I could be wrong. Neither of us knows what we are talking about, and even Dormer is 50-60 years out of date. Also, the date painters stopped using a particular paint could be 20 years or more after it stopped being produced, to use up the supply on hand, which depends on need and might extend over the painter's lifetime and that of whoever inherits his shop. Pigment analysis is better at saying when a painting couldn't have been made than when it could. So for these cards probably not much before 1450, but up to when is more uncertain.

It seems to me irrelevant whether a Dauphin had been in the Dauphiné. He still gets the Dolphin arms. And it doesn't matter if a Dauphin had been in Flanders either; the Goldschmidt could as well have been painted by a French, Flemish, or Milanese painter in France, as by a Milanese or Flemish painter in Flanders. There was lots of interchange then, most of it undocumented by tarot researchers and perhaps anyone else.

Huck wrote,
There are documentations of Flemish traders at the custom office in Rome 1453-1465, who payed the tax for playing cards and also Trionfi cards.
What follows from that? That they bought cards in Rome for export to points unknown? That they imported cards to Rome from points unknown? That they made or purchase cards in Rome for local purchase? I don't know under what conditions they had to pay the tax. Is anything known? If not, then not much follows.

Also, if this data tends to show that triumph cards were used in Flanders then, that says nothing about the point at issue, the date of the Goldschmidt, because it is a hand-painted deck for a court, a market independent of the merchants and done to order with specific heraldics, etc., for people familiar with the game in other places, such as Savoy or Anjou, from personal experience. Also, if triumphs became established in that time period in Flanders, probably they continued to be used there and even spread from there to nearby areas such as Northwestern France later.

Re: John Shephard - Goldschmidt tarot

#27
mikeh wrote: Huck wrote,
There are documentations of Flemish traders at the custom office in Rome 1453-1465, who payed the tax for playing cards and also Trionfi cards.
What follows from that? That they bought cards in Rome for export to points unknown? That they imported cards to Rome from points unknown? That they made or purchase cards in Rome for local purchase? I don't know under what conditions they had to pay the tax. Is anything known? If not, then not much follows.

Also, if this data tends to show that triumph cards were used in Flanders then, that says nothing about the point at issue, the date of the Goldschmidt, because it is a hand-painted deck for a court, a market independent of the merchants and done to order with specific heraldics, etc., for people familiar with the game in other places, such as Savoy or Anjou, from personal experience. Also, if triumphs became established in that time period in Flanders, probably they continued to be used there and even spread from there to nearby areas such as Northwestern France later.
... hm ...

I don't write the first time about this. I guess, that it should have been always clear, that this was import and not export ... IMPORT to Rome, not export from Rome.

Maybe I use the wrong expressions. There were two custom offices [in Rome, not in Burgundy], one for ships (Hafenzoll), another for import on land (Landzoll, dogano di terra).

Playing cards, which came with ship, came from the South (Gaeta) and they didn't include Trionfi cards.
Trionfi cards came always by land or "terra". Likely the office had been close to a Northern city door, cause most imports came from Florence [and Florence is in the North of Rome]
The tax for dogana da terra had been 5 % of the estimated value, for ship import curiously 6.5 %.

According Esch the custom officer likely had often problems to estimate the prize, not at every day there were playing cards, but more like 2-3 times in a month.

The few merchants, who had playing cards, had not only playing cards (at least usually).

The point, that the Flemish merchants appeared often together at the office, likely indicates, that they had a longer way together and that they protected themselves against robbery and theft by travelling in a group.

Naturally it isn't totally clear, if these Flemish merchants had Flemish playing cards. Esch observes, that occasionally the Flemish merchants have "mercia de Fiorensa" or "coltelli fiorentini", also "argento de Colonia", but most of their products seem to be Flemish imports according his opinion.
In one case in 1462 for the trader Cornelio it's written "carte et altre merce fiorentine".

Esch imagines, that the Flemish imports might have come via ship and the harbor of Pisa. And from Pisa via Florence to Rome.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: John Shephard - Goldschmidt tarot

#28
Thanks. That was useful information. I can't remember if you were clear on these things before or not. I know you wrote about the Flemish merchants before; if you explained these things then, I apologize for not remembering. It's an important point, Flemish trionfi production that early; I want to be sure I understand correctly, along with the reasons for the answer.

I hadn't thought much about trade routes from Flanders and elsewhere, except from Florence. I understand that Flemish goods wouldn't have come by ship around Spain, it's too risky. I would have thought that they would go to Marseilles, mainly by means of canals or rivers and then by ship from there. What I don't understand is why, if they were going to Rome, they would unload in Pisa and go overland to Rome from there rather than going directly to Rome (well, Ostia) by ship. Was that a policy set by Rome, that all imports from the north go through Florence? Was it to take advantage of the lower tax there? Somehow it seems like the expense of going overland would outweigh the tax advantage.

If playing cards came by ship from the south, where would they have been made? You have "Gaeta" in parentheses. Is that where playing cards were made, or what? I thought it was mainly a port. I would have guessed that playing cards would have been made in Naples. And I would have thought that if they made playing cards, they made trionfi, too.

There is also the question of who Flemish trionfi decks would have been made for. Were they decks made for Italians, in the way that Germans made "Spanish" cards for people in Italy and Aragon? If so, the game might not have been played in Flanders. Or were they decks made for Flemish people in Rome? Somehow I can't imagine very many Flemish people there, not enough to justify the numbers imported. And were they hand-painted, or woodblock prints? I would assume the latter.

I understand that some of these questions might not have known answers. But maybe you can answer some of them.

Re: John Shephard - Goldschmidt tarot

#29
mikeh wrote:Thanks. That was useful information. I can't remember if you were clear on these things before or not. I know you wrote about the Flemish merchants before; if you explained these things then, I apologize for not remembering. It's an important point, Flemish trionfi production that early; I want to be sure I understand correctly, along with the reasons for the answer.

I hadn't thought much about trade routes from Flanders and elsewhere, except from Florence. I understand that Flemish goods wouldn't have come by ship around Spain, it's too risky. I would have thought that they would go to Marseilles, mainly by means of canals or rivers and then by ship from there. What I don't understand is why, if they were going to Rome, they would unload in Pisa and go overland to Rome from there rather than going directly to Rome (well, Ostia) by ship. Was that a policy set by Rome, that all imports from the north go through Florence? Was it to take advantage of the lower tax there? Somehow it seems like the expense of going overland would outweigh the tax advantage.

If playing cards came by ship from the south, where would they have been made? You have "Gaeta" in parentheses. Is that where playing cards were made, or what? I thought it was mainly a port. I would have guessed that playing cards would have been made in Naples. And I would have thought that if they made playing cards, they made trionfi, too.
Esch had been a longer time a professor, who cared mainly for the Roman institute, which had the responsibility for the 15th century Zollarchive. About this he wrote some of his books, in which he presented also some notes about playing cards (also Trionfi cards).
When he noted, that we had a very big interest in these playing card notes ('mainly thanks to the articles of Franco Pratesi), he reworked his material to playing cards and presented it concentrated in an article in the Gutenberg Jahrbuch.
So Esch had an intensive view at anything, which had to do with this archive in Rome, also considerations, what the original location of the imported productions should have been, although this naturally wasn't always noted in the documents. The article about playing cards is not long (13 pages), but it is backed up by all the other works to the themes of the archive (which I personally haven't read all, but only a little bit).

Ostia is an old port ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostia_Antica
... which likely was out of function in 15th century. Gaeta is the relevant port and it is very far to the South, actually closer to Naples than to Rome.
Burgundian merchants (likely) wouldn't have made their deals for Rome alone, but likely in combination with the location Florence and other interesting markets at the same direction, especially Siena, possibly also Naples.

Actually I don't know, where and when the taxes were paid. If the dogana di mare was managed in Gaeta, the tax for Rome possibly was asked for, when you entered the territory of the Chiesa ... but then the material for "dogana di terra" must have been collected at various stations on the country. Well. I don't know ...

Trionfi cards came only from the dogana di terra. Normal playing cards came occasionally via ship ... without clear statements, from which place they brought the playing cards. The documents note the owner of the ship (which doesn't give the origin of the delivered products, only if the cards were brought "from home"'), and the kind of (the other) delivered products, which occasionally give a hint, from which region the ship possibly came. Esch notes, that some documents look, as if the playing cards in Gaeta came (often) from the South, but he has no answer or idea, from which location.

Actually Spain or Sicily would make sense, if Naples could be excluded. On the base of Pratesi's material it looked as if the name of the remarkable "cheapest producer" in Franco's lists ("Niccolò di Calvello" or "Nicholo di Chalvelo fa i naibi") would originate from Southern Italy, possibly even producing in Southern Italy.
He started to appear in Florence in May 15 in 1442 (possibly as a refugee ?) and sold a few cards, Naples was taken at June 2 in 1442.
Niccolo reappeared a half year later and then became a constant factor with some longer interruptions.
There is also the question of who Flemish trionfi decks would have been made for. Were they decks made for Italians, in the way that Germans made "Spanish" cards for people in Italy and Aragon? If so, the game might not have been played in Flanders. Or were they decks made for Flemish people in Rome? Somehow I can't imagine very many Flemish people there, not enough to justify the numbers imported. And were they hand-painted, or woodblock prints? I would assume the latter.

I understand that some of these questions might not have known answers. But maybe you can answer some of them.

Occasionally cards with Latin suit were also produced in Germany (few old examples) and there are some documents, that cards were exported to Italy (both not much as far I know). We have the Venice document of 1441,
trying to protect the home market against foreign producers.

Similar things might be imagined for Flemish-Italian relations. If the Goldschmidt cards were such an unusual Flemish production, it would possible look in Italy like a "Trionfi card version" and might have been addressed as such in Roman custom registers.
Similar "Minchiate" cards, a terminus not used in the full 15th century Roman custom registers, though games with this name must have existed 1465-1477 in Florence. They might have been registered as "Trionfi".

The Tournay production seems to have been big enough to look for export possibilities.

*************

My earlier researches
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=967
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: John Shephard - Goldschmidt tarot

#30
Thanks for the clarifications, Huck. I think I understand better. I need no more convincing that Louis XI is a viable possibility for the Goldschmidt falconer. However it seems to me that the points I raised about the shortcomings of pigment analysis, about tarot playing in France, and about the spread of Flemish artistic styles, still hold. So Charles VIII remains in the running, even if he never went to Dauphiné or Flanders.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

cron