Re: Panegyric of Bruzio Visconti by Bartolomeo da Bologn

#61
Except for a few details, I can only say again that I don't disagree with the positive part of your analysis above. I agree with the pregnancy angle on the Star, and its dynastic importance (of less importance for Bianca at the time I think the card was done, but still relevant for Elisabetta and others), and allusion to the Virgin Mary. I agree that Chastity is less an issue in the PMB Chariot, as opposed to virtue generally (and likewise in the Florentine cards), but still see the winged white horses as those of Plato's Phaedrus, which propel the virtues in their courses, as opposed to some doubled Pegasus. This is a minor detail.

With 4 of 6 Petrarchans represented in the CY, 2 of them in surviving titles, I cannot see how you can deny his relevance. Also, the order remains important and cannot be dismissed with a wave of the pen (or keyboard) as of no interest. The proliferation of Petrarchan illuminations, cassoni, and birth trays in Florence after 1440 would certainly seem to be attributable to the proliferation of the tarot around then. There were a few adjustments, yes. In Florence the Chariot card represents Virtue in action (I don't think you disagree), and Time at some point gets a different representative (2 of the celestials, if not also the World as its limit). These are outlined, more or less, by Shephard (viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1120&p=17956#p17956). And while Dante is one place where relevant correspondences can be found, there are others, such as Plato, the Platonists, and the medieval church. There is no need for a single source; in fact, the more the better (more "hooks" by which to remember them). The particular subjects, and their placement, between Death and Eternity still need to be accounted for, especially the Devil and the Tower. It seems to me that the Divine Comedy works well enough, with the Devil as Hell and the Tower as the Mountain of Purgatory, as seen in the 1465 fresco in the Duomo of Florence, with the celestials in the "order of light", for the convenience of the players. Plutarch's On the Face in the Moon accounts for certain C order details later, starting with the Cary Sheet.

Re: Panegyric of Bruzio Visconti by Bartolomeo da Bologn

#62
MiheH ...
Bear in mind Franco's recent finding that the sheets that came with the Rosenwald 3rd sheet are from the 1507 Perugia edition of a law book. We really don't know what distinguished minchiate in 1466 from ordinary triumphs. It may have simply been the presence of the theologicals and Prudence, and perhaps the absence of the Popess, for a 25 or 26 triumph deck, and/or the absence of the celestials.
First I was surprised by this finding, but I later returned to the position, that the Rosenwald might be indeed from 1465.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1105&hilit=rosenwa ... =10#p17049

And I think, the suggested date was 1501-02 for the additional papers ...
[The page of the first book of the Consiliorum of Pier Filippo Corneo belongs to the edition of Perugia 1501-1502: Primum [-quartum] volumen consiliorum d. Petri Philippi Cornei ... - (Impresse Perusii: sumptibus et impensis Petripauli ac Iulij Cesaris Petriphilippi filiorum: cura et diligentia Francisci Baldasaris Bibliopole de Perusio, 1501-1502). Please find enclosed the scan
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1105&hilit=rosenwald
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Panegyric of Bruzio Visconti by Bartolomeo da Bologn

#63
I only meant to say that your assumption is not secure, by any means. The hat on the Rosenwald Magician is that of a jester, someone who entertains with a performance. Whether such a hat makes a person both a "bagatella" and a "folle" in the deck is unclear, without knowing the whole deck. By the same token, it is still unclear whether the Rosenwald is actually a minchiate, in the sense of a 96 or 97 card deck. There are absolutely no images on that sheet reflective of the expanded version. And even if it is the expanded version, it is unclear how far back that structure would go. 1466 is a long way from 1501 (I stand corrected on the date). In such a case one cannot draw even probable conclusions.

Re: Panegyric of Bruzio Visconti by Bartolomeo da Bologn

#64
mikeh wrote:I only meant to say that your assumption is not secure, by any means. The hat on the Rosenwald Magician is that of a jester, someone who entertains with a performance. Whether such a hat makes a person both a "bagatella" and a "folle" in the deck is unclear, without knowing the whole deck. By the same token, it is still unclear whether the Rosenwald is actually a minchiate, in the sense of a 96 or 97 card deck. There are absolutely no images on that sheet reflective of the expanded version. And even if it is the expanded version, it is unclear how far back that structure would go. 1466 is a long way from 1501 (I stand corrected on the date). In such a case one cannot draw even probable conclusions.
The feature, that the costumes of printed card findings are old, but the printing year is much younger, had been often observed ... at least it is an argument in discussions. "Once made pictures were repeated in later productions" is seen as a possible explanation. 35 years between 1466-1501 wouldn't be too much. The sheet is clearly from the cheap market, rather small cards.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Panegyric of Bruzio Visconti by Bartolomeo da Bologn

#65
Yes, what you say is possible. The problem is that you make many assumptions, each quite insecure and reducing the probability of the whole. (If a story has 2 assumptions, each with, say, a 1/2 chance of being true, the whole has a 1/4 chance of being true.) And at least one of your assumptions is fairly unlikely.

We don't know how far back the images on the Rosenwald go. They might go back as far as the 1440s, except not in minchiate, but in a 21 or 22 triumph deck. Also, surely a deck in Milan, if initially less than 22 triumphs, is more likely to conform its triumph deck to an existing standard closer to its own size in Florence, than to find inspiration from one with 15 or so extra triumphs (39 - 14) but only reproducing 6 or 8 of them (this is the unlikely assumption). If so, we do not have to assume that the Rosenwald is a minchiate as opposed to a triumph deck (since in at least 21 cases, the images are similar), nor any particular starting date for the images as a whole. We do not even have to assume that the jump to 22 happened in Milan. We only need to assume a motivation on the part of different cities for a certain standardization, so that players in one city can find the same game, albeit perhaps with a few changes in the sequence, in another city. This assumption seems justified by the fact that in the different cities the subjects do end up being the same and in close to the same order. The only exception is in fact minchiate, the differing components of which are known for sure only in the mid-16th century (Aretino's Le Carte Parlante).

Re: Panegyric of Bruzio Visconti by Bartolomeo da Bologn

#66
mikeh wrote:Yes, what you say is possible. The problem is that you make many assumptions, each quite insecure and reducing the probability of the whole. (If a story has 2 assumptions, each with, say, a 1/2 chance of being true, the whole has a 1/4 chance of being true.) And at least one of your assumptions is fairly unlikely.
What is "fairly unlikely" in your opinion?

We have more than one sheet, actually 4, and they should come at least from 2 different sources (the source for Leinfelden and the Rosenwald, which has 3 different sheets). The 3 sheets from the Rosenwald show between them small iconographic style differences, indicating that the sheets were not printed all at the same time, but partly from woodcut-blocks, which replaced other damaged woodcut-blocks ... this indicates a long-time use.

This condition should give the sign, that the deck has a broad distribution (broad distribution means also - likely - a long time distribution). Also we have recognizable a cheap deck (small cards, figures with much details). For various reasons c. 1463-1465 looks like the start of the cheap deck, parallel to this we have the first appearance of the word Minchiate 1466.

In the operation of the silk dealers we can see, what the difference between cheap and middle class and expensive means in the 1440s.

For Niccolo di Calvello: cheap decks, high number of sales, decks are sold in dozens (1-2 soldi)
Image


For Antonio di Dino, middle class decks, less high number of sales (around 5 soldi)
Image


For Antonio di Simone, expensive decks (around 9 soldi)
Image

We don't know how far back the images on the Rosenwald go. They might go back as far as the 1440s, except not in minchiate, but in a 21 or 22 triumph deck.
We don't have prices below 9 Soldi (beside 2 exceptions) for Trionfi decks in the 1440s and 1450s at the silk dealer lists ... that's the price for the silk dealers, not for the customers.
This doesn't indicate a cheap price for Trionfi decks. It seems, that the price was kept artificially higher than it could be ... as far we can see that from the given data.

A radical fall of the price appears in 1463. Then suddenly 240 decks are sold in one operation. And the price for these is very, very low.

Johanni Tornieri
1463 "2,5 ducats" for "20 dozen triunfi picholi"
which roughly means 1/100 ducat for 1 triunfi picholi .
if 1 ducat = 4 or 5 Lira and 1 Lira = 20 soldi, we are at a price of c. 1 soldi for each deck, which is lower than the price for normal cards by the cheapest producer in Florence, Niccolo di Calvello, in the 1440s.

There are unsolved problems in the comparison between prices in Rome and in Florence, and an import might have had luck with a friendly custom officer. Also there is the chance, that these were incomplete, not finished cards, for instance just sheets, which were finished by local Roman artists.
Naturally there's also the chance, that this is just an error, either by the reader of the document or the writer of the document.
Also, surely a deck in Milan, if initially less than 22 triumphs, is more likely to conform its triumph deck to an existing standard closer to its own size in Florence, than to find inspiration from one with 15 or so extra triumphs (39 - 14) but only reproducing 6 or 8 of them (this is the unlikely assumption).
If so, we do not have to assume that the Rosenwald is a minchiate as opposed to a triumph deck (since in at least 21 cases, the images are similar), nor any particular starting date for the images as a whole.
The Rosenwald is clearly a Minchiate, the same type of knights (men mixed with animal body), the same type of fante (2 male, 2 female). And it is clearly a very cheap deck. And very cheap Trionfi decks didn't exist, as demonstrated ... just according our limited information.

Perhaps there was an underground production of playing cards and this had cheaper Trionfi cards. Who knows.

Image


3 similar Fools, all from from Florence, at least 2 of them from 1464/65

But why we do lead such discussions in a thread called "Panegyric of Bruzio Visconti by Bartolomeo da Bologn"
What didactical value has this? It gives the feeling, as if we fill the waste basket.

Here starts this chaos ... with PRUDENTIA.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=862&start=30#p17838

... .-) ...

Added:

I discovered today this figure ...

Image

see .. viewtopic.php?f=23&t=383&p=18110#p18110
from FLORENCE
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Panegyric of Bruzio Visconti by Bartolomeo da Bologn

#67
mikeh wrote: With 4 of 6 Petrarchans represented in the CY, 2 of them in surviving titles, I cannot see how you can deny his relevance. Also, the order remains important and cannot be dismissed with a wave of the pen (or keyboard) as of no interest.The proliferation of Petrarchan illuminations, cassoni, and birth trays in Florence after 1440 would certainly seem to be attributable to the proliferation of the tarot around then.
Its precisely the contemporary Petrarchan evidence that has me rule out his trionfi as a model for the trumps, because the trumps deviate significantly from the Petrarchan cognates (e.g., a cupid over a couple with a matrimonial bed behind them, as in the CY, has absolutely nothing to do with Petrarch).

Naturally the large corpus of Petrarchan-influenced iconography influences the iconography of the trumps, but the obvious differences in number and attributes do not make a compelling argument for Petrarch in any way as the prototype for the trumps. Again, it would be stupid to rule out Petrarchan influences (hell, Filippo commissioned Filelfo to provide a commentary on P.'s canzoniere near the end of his life), but neither Petrarch's text nor the 15th century iconographical tradition of portraying his trionfi match the trumps.

Even arguably the closest match in the CY, Chastity-Chariot, presents significant challenges for someone supposing a match.

First of all, the explicit theme is the God of Love/Amor attacking Chastity:
So I saw Love, with all his armaments,
Moving to capture her of whom I write,
Swifter than flame or wind in her defense.
And far more terrible than the mighty sounds Of
Aetna shaken by Enceladus,
Or Scylla and Charybdis in their wrath,
Was the first clash of the two combatants
The outcome of the dread assault unsure
Nor have I words to tell of it aright.
Love is wholly absent in the CY! There is no combat, in fact the jousting shield that Chastity wields against Love's arrows in one iconographical tradition, is not being parried against blows but extended out in a gesture of offering (she is giving away her chastity to her betrothed).

Then Petrarch's specifics of Chastity herself have no bearing on the CY figure except for a mention of a shield:
She wore, that day, a gown of white, and held
The shield that brought Medusa to her death.
To a fair jasper column that was there,
And with a chain once dipped in Lethe's stream
A chain of diamond and topaz, such
As women used to wear, but wear no more
I saw him bound, and saw him then chastised
Enough to wreak a thousand vengeances:
And I was well content, and satisfied.
I could not fairly celebrate in rhyme,
Nor could Calliope and the Muses all,
The host of holy women who were there;
But I will tell of some in the forefront
Of truest honor; and among them....
* The apotropaic function of the shield (brought 'Medusa to her death') is irrelevant in the CY.
* Love is not bound with a chain - he is simply missing.
* the host of women are missing
* CY woman wears gold, not white
* Where is there mention of a star-bangled canopy for Chastity as in the CY?

The primary meaning of the CY chariot is not Chastity - it is a betrothed bride and, more significantly, the conveyance of not just a bride but her attendant dowry of a domain: Cremona (and Pontremoli), that must be alluded to in the World. The shield itself features Filippo's favored imprese (not Medusa) - the radiant dove (found embroidered on his shoulder in all of his profile images) - and this shield is proffered because Sforza is essentially becoming a Visconti (VICECOMES) by accepting it, per the medal made for him in Milan, in which he takes on the Visconti possession of Cremona in addition to his fief of the Marche: ...MARCHIO • ET • COMES • AC • CREMONE. http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/205705

And if you disagree that the CY Chariot is NOT primarily Chastity, what does that virtue have to do with any other subsequent Chariot, particularly when male? The Petrarchan iconographical attribute of depicting Chastity with a jousting shield has been applied to Bianca to underscore her virtue and necessarily the intact virtue of the marriage/dowry, but the Petrarchan theme of Chastity triumphing over Love could not be more irrelevant to the CY trump.

You have over-stated a Chastity attribute whose meaning was completely changed via the contextualization of the CY Chariot and trump cycle, for Chastity itself. The same could be said for all of the other supposed Petrarch influenced trumps - a shared attribute does not make that trump Petrarchan nor part of a Petrarch cycle; the trump cycle is the context.

This:
Image


...is not this:
Image


Phaeded

Re: Panegyric of Bruzio Visconti by Bartolomeo da Bologn

#68
Phaeded: We've been over all this before. You say the cup is half empty and therefore not related to "full", I say it is half full, and therefore is related to "full". Actually, it is more than half full. The CY's love is not the same as Petrarch's love, but it is still love. The card is not intended to illustrate Petrarch's poem. It is a 1440 duke's idea about how love should be portrayed, in relation to marriage. Petrarch's Pudicitia is not the same as Chastity (chastity is one part of Pudicitia), and a bride gives up neither upon marriage. Read the poem closely (the one on Pudicitia, not the one on Death); there is nothing there about life-long virginity. A woman's Pudicitia merely changes its nature, from that of an unmarried woman to that of a married woman, if the woman chooses marriage. Pudicitia is a concept that applies to both men and women. Whether later decks, such as the CVI, continue to represent Pudicitia with their chariot cards is not of concern. Concepts change. For example, there was a shift, in Florence, from feminine-oriented marriage chests to male-oriented ones. Instead of clones in the next generation, we get family resemblances. But the general structure of the deck does not change. Death is the same in Petrarch and the CY, even if Petrarch does not portray it on horseback mowing people down. It seems to me that Petrarch's idea of Fama is close to what is being portrayed on the CY World card, even if the fama of just one person. Surely the Angel, with people below rising from their tombs and God the Father above, is about Eternity. That's five. Exactly what corresponds to Time is unclear, since we don't have the whole sequence. It might be the Wheel of Fortune; I think it is more likely the old man with the hourglass. The imagery isn't the same, but what is depicted are still five Petrarchan-style triumphs, recognizably drawing on the poems' titles and conception of "triumph". People took liberties in how they portrayed things, usually in accord with the commissioner's wishes and the occasion, if any. It was considered a good thing; it showed inventiveness and flexibility. It was no longer the Middle Ages, and their patron wasn't the Church. In the case of the cards, they weren't illustrating a book. Even when they were illustrating the book, they took liberties, drawing from other sources and their own imaginations. That was the rule, not the exception.

Re: Panegyric of Bruzio Visconti by Bartolomeo da Bologn

#69
Huck: by "fairly unlikely", I meant less likely than the hypothesis I presented, that if Milan was responding to a deck elsewhere when it went to 22 from some smaller number, it would likely have been a 22 triumph deck elsewhere, not a 96 or 97 card deck. You have done a good job justifying your assumptions, at least as far as when a minchiate like the Rosenwald was likely to have come about, probably because then such a large deck was economically feasible for players. That's very helpful.

However it still seems to me that if Milan, in making the move to 22, was responding to deck production elsewhere, it would have been more likely a 22 triumph deck, or less, than a 96 triumph one. The 96 card deck was so "over the top" it wasn't relevant in Milan, which never showed any interest in its special cards. And again, why would it be just 5 or 6 cards, as opposed to 15 or 16? Yes, it could have been in 1462 or so that Milan was flooded with cheap 22 triumph decks from Florence, not only cheaper than Milan's but making for a more interesting game. In order to compete Milan then would have had to make 22 triumph decks of its own. But such a phenomenon could easily have been earlier, if 22 triumph medium-price decks were being exported to Milan, or if card-players from Milan were visiting Florence and liked the 22 card version better. This could happen any time trade and travel rose to a significant level, i.e. after 1450, even more so after the peace of Lodi in 1454. Another opportunity, although brief and so less significant for standardization among centers, would have been 1438-1439, the time of the Conclave, which would have attracted many visitors, if only to see the Greeks in full regalia.

Added later: Franco has recently suggested--admittedly without evidence--just the reverse of what you are arguing, namely, that the Florentines invented minchiate in response to the increase somewhere else over what they had (viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1120&start=50#p18092). To me that makes more sense than your proposal.

Re: Panegyric of Bruzio Visconti by Bartolomeo da Bologn

#70
mikeh wrote:Huck: by "fairly unlikely", I meant less likely than the hypothesis I presented, that if Milan was responding to a deck elsewhere when it went to 22 from some smaller number, it would likely have been a 22 triumph deck elsewhere, not a 96 or 97 card deck. You have done a good job justifying your assumptions, at least as far as when a minchiate like the Rosenwald was likely to have come about, probably because then such a large deck was economically feasible for players. That's very helpful.
Pay attention to viewtopic.php?f=11&p=18118#p18118
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mikeh and 17 guests

cron