3-fold "Lorenzo" ... game inventors ? Or what ...

#1
Recently the "new" oldest references to the game name "Germini" was detected .... 1517 and 1519.

http://trionfi.com/germini-1517-1519

In the center of the new detection stands the person Lorenzo de Medici, duke of Urbino, who played Germini. This is not the famous Lorenzo de Medici, but his grandson, a son of Piero the Unfortunate, who lost the reign in Florence, when in 1494 the French army appeared, and who died in a river, when he attempted to escape after a lost battle in 1503.

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

About 24 years ago Franco Pratesi published about the "still" oldest references to the game name "Minchiate" in 1466, 1470/71 and 1477. The note of 1466, the oldest of these 3 documents, is a letter of the poet Luigi Pulci to Lorenzo de Medici, grandfather of the other "Germini"-Lorenzo.
We have republished the relevant article:

http://trionfi.com/tarot-florence-xvi-century

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

That's a curious accident having here grandfather and grandson, both already connected by the same name "Lorenzo de Medici", united ALSO by really accidental results of Tarot history research.

Naturally it's not very accidental, but tradition, that persons with the same name appear in families. For the Medici we have in close neighborhood four times "Lorenzo de Medici":

1. Lorenzo de Medici: 1395-1440 ... called the elder, granduncle of the famous Lorenzo de Medici, brother of Cosimo the elder.

2. Lorenzo de Medici: 1449 - 1492 .. the famous ... = MINCHIATE-Lorenzo, grandson of Cosimo the elder

3. Lorenzo de Medici: September 1492 ... born in the death year of his grandfather Lorenzo the famous, (died in 1492 April 9) died himself soon

4. Lorenzo de Medici: bon September 1493 ... born a year later than his brother (3) with the same name, naturally with the same grandfather ... = GERMINI-Lorenzo

It's very common in families, that children get names of relatives, often the name of the grandfather (see 1492, see 1493). Also it's common, that families avoid double naming, when the relatives still live (see 1449; not Cosimo was taken, but Lorenzo, the dead granduncle). I's also relative common, that, when a child with a specific name died, that the next child with the same gender got the same name (see 1493).

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

Now we have in our research practice 4 playing card riddles, which we follow with some intensity (well, likely some of us have made these many, often frustrating, but occasionally very successful search engine operations):

1. Trionfi (or similar) ... with the current solution: 1440 Florence
2. Minchiate (or similar) ... with the current solution: MINCHIATE-Lorenzo (1466)
3. Tarocchi (or similar) ... with the current solution: 1505 Ferrara
4. Germini (or Gemini) ... with the current solution: GERMINI-Lorenzo (1517)

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

Just being made a little bit curious about the strange accident with MINCHIATE-Lorenzo and GERMINI-Lorenzo I just placed behind the "Trionfi (or similar)" question a "TRIONFI-Lorenzo", and looked, what I could find. It wasn't really difficult:

1440-09-16: Giusto-Giusti document
1440-09-23: death of Lorenzo de Medici, called the elder, died one week later than the Giusto document.

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

In the larger context we have, that Lorenzo was the 6-years-younger brother of Cosimo and he naturally stood in the shadow of him. Filelfo, who knew the Medici from the early 1430s and had feelings about them, called Cosimo a "fox", Lorenzo a "cow" and a cousin Averardo a "wolf".
Normal biographies see him just occupied with the banking function. I remember, that I've earlier got some material, from which I concluded, that Lorenzo had greater responsibilities for the intellectual side of Florence, and that young Piero de Medici took this role, after Lorenzo died. Cosimo had higher functions, focused on the power in the state, naturally he delegated a lot of things.
For the moment - bad internet connection - closer use of books.google.com is difficult to me, so I can only refer to that, what I remember. I remember, but I might err, that the poetical contest of October 1441 was dedicated to the (dead) Lorenzo.

Lorenzo's biggest role, that he had in his life, was, when he arranged, that the council of Ferrara became a council of Florence, and there it led to a series of "triumphal events" and these events possibly triggered an interest in the "Trionfi" of Petrarca and this activity might have triggered ALSO the existence of playing cards, which were called Trionfi decks.

For the first illustrated Trionfi book (known by the Matteo de Pasti letter in January 1441) ordered by Piero we have, that this happened after Giusti-Giusto-deck, but also after Lorenzo's death.

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

Indeed a strange accident ...
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: 3-fold "Lorenzo" ... game inventors ? Or what ...

#2
I found this to Lorenzo the Elder in the biography of Cosimo by Bisticci:

Image

Image


http://books.google.de/books?id=lyMQTgO ... zo&f=false

Well, San Lorenzo became one of the biggest churches in Florence, and somehow the building manifested, that Medici reigned in Florence and Toscana for 300 years with only short interruption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_o ... ,_Florence
The building story of wiki forgets to mention Lorenzo the elder. San Lorenzo became the burial place for the Medici.

What shall one say to this action? It seems, that Cosimo did a lot to keep his brother's memory alive.

Cardinal Cesarini, present a the council, had a good relation with Lorenzo:

Image

(Bisticci, p. 129)

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

here two images from Lorenzo :
http://www.palazzo-medici.it/mediateca/ ... il_Vecchio
According to the sources and to his panegyrists (Poggio Bracciolini, Pacini and Vespasiano da Bisticci) he was a man of robust health, very active, who loved the countryside, hunting and dogs. In a letter of 1440 he wrote to his nephew Giovanni to thank him for the dogs that he had sent him, while informing him that he would be sending them back to have them replaced with others.
I thought, that Bisticci's panegyric work would be a biography in Bisticci's biographies. No, he hasn't an article in it. I thought, that treccani.it should have an article. I didn't find it.

http://www.gwu.edu/~art/Temporary_SL/22 ... er_01a.pdf
... says in the first article, that Cosimo and Lorenzo and after Lorenzo's death his family shared their households in the city and on the country, till 1451. Which explains, that Cosimo and Lorenzo were very close to each other.

Ah, I found, what I wrote earlier:
More to the link between Piero and his uncle Lorenzo as the Medici contact to the intellectual elite:

The 4 Medici took administrative function for the Florentine university: Lorenzo and his nephew took much occupations, Cosimo and his son only rarely.


Lorenzo di Giovanni die Medici served as an ufficiale dello studio in 1431, from 1434 - 1435, and from 1436 to 1437 and as an accoppiatore in 1440 - 1441

Piero di Cosimo de Medici worked as ufficiale dello studio in 1445-1446, 1455 - 1456 and 1458 - 1461. He served as accoppiatore 1448, from 1452 - 1455, from 1458 - 1465; Piero studied under Filelfo before and was

***
Cosimo di Cosimo served as ufficiale della studio in 1416-17 and as accoppiatore in 1440-1441 (? likely replacing his dead brother Lorenzo).

Giovanni had the position of ufficiale della studio in 1447 - 1448.


The interest in keeping the unversity under control, had political reasons. In 1433 Cosimo was exiled and nearly had to pay wth his life.
This political misstep had a background in quarrels at the university

It started with Filelfo, who was welcomed as university teacher also by Cosimo.
However, Filelfo got envy, that another university teacher got comissions by the Medici family, Marsuppini. This led to first difficulties especially to the rettore of the university, Broccardi, and ...

After the election of a pro-Medici-Sgnoria in early March 1432 Filelfo was sentenced to 3 years exile. However the Signoria gave its protection to Filelfo against any attack of the rettore and the ufficiale della studio. In December 1432 Broccardi was at the end of his rectorship and Filelfo testified against Broccardi in the examination of the rectorship.
In Aril and May 1433 Filelfo send hostile letters. Filelfo was attacked at 18th in May and his face seriously cut. Broccardi was arrested and confessed under the torture, that he had hired the assailant. But the Medici were suspected as the real commissioners (the fine of Broccardi was paid by Lorenzo di Medici).
In September 1433 Cosimo was arrested and Filelfo called for his execution. Cosimo was send to exile. When Cosimo returned, Filelfo fled to Siena. An attempt to kill Filelfo failed, and Filelfo sent a killer, who should assassinate Marsuppini, Broccardi and Lorenzo di Medici.

Filelfo was sentenced in absentia. Finally he went to Milan to Filippo Maria Visconti, who loved persons, which hated his foes.

source:
http://books.google.com/books?id=c11chZ ... A#PPA81,M1

It's remarked in the text also, that the Medici lost in political power by the peace of Lodi (1454; till 1458).
They focussed then especially on the university. Of the 5 ufficiale dello studiolo in 1455 - 1456 one was Pietro di Medici and the other were all Mediceans.

This latter condition should be reflected in the evaluation of the 1450 allowance of the Trionfi game. The reigning society of 1450 was exchanged in the meantime. The new regiment possibly were not in a similar way playing card friendly.
http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?p=1326274
14-01-2008 ... a longer time ago

So, here page 85 from the linked text, as already given ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=c11chZ ... A#PPA81,M1

Image


... but to get the full insight, why Filelfo got into this trouble, you need to read a longer text before.

A piece of text at page 86 makes clear, that Lorenzo "supervised" the Studio and that the Medici took attention, that they kept the control about it after his death (likely they thought it appropriate to control it, otherwise it might have become dangerous for their rule). Piero took - mostly - the role of Lorenzo.

Image


Lorenzo, even, when he was "only" a younger brother, had his importance in the system of Cosimo.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: 3-fold "Lorenzo" ... game inventors ? Or what ...

#3
Huck,
Good to see you posting more frequently again.

Regarding the connection between Cosimo’s brother Lorenzo Medici and Filelfo, see the poem written by the latter to both brothers (to Cosimo actually, as I will argue below) , reproduced in the appendix of this article by Christine M. Sperling: Donatello's Bronze 'David' and the Demands of Medici Politics, The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 134, No. 1069 (Apr., 1992), pp. 218-224. The article is available as a pdf on-line here: http://www.montgomerycollege.edu/~bevan ... litics.pdf

The article is about dating Donatello’s famed bronze David by connecting the formerly lost inscription (which Sperling found in manuscript form) and to Filelfo’s poem. What concerns me is the date and intent of Filelfo’s poem, although there are other problems with Sperling’s thesis - but first Sperling’s thesis at length here:
The text of an hitherto unpublished inscription that
once accompanied the David is recorded in a Florentine
manuscript, where it is accompanied by the well-known
inscription from the base of Donatello's Judith and Holofernes
The portion of the manuscript that concerns us
reads as follows:
In domo magnifici Pieri Medicis sub Davide eneo :
Victor est quisquis patriam tuetur
Frangit immanis Deus hostis iras :
En puer grandem domuit tiramnum
Vincite cives


(The victor is whoever defends the fatherland. God
crushes the wrath of an enormous foe. Behold! a boy
overcame a great tyrant. Conquer, o citizens)

While the author of the inscription and his literary
sources are as yet unknown, the text itself closely resembles
an unpublished poem in the Biblioteca Nazionale in Florence
by Francesco Filelfo, the restless and combative humanist
scholar from Tolentino (see the Appendix, below). Each
of Filelfo's twenty-four verses is in the Sapphic mode and
concludes with the words 'Vincite fortes' ('Conquer, o strong
ones!'). In the poem, Filelfo addresses by name Cosimo
de' Medici and his younger brother Lorenzo, who had
once been his patrons and supporters. He describes the
Medici triumphantly entering the city and asks, rather
forlornly, why they do not return his greeting. He concludes
by excusing himself of some misdeed and affirming the
happy nature of the occasion.

At the end of the poem appear a date and a location:
10th November Florence. No year is given but Filelfo's
account of the Medici's return and their chilly response to
his attempts at reconciliation (see especially stanza 21)
coincides with the events of autumn 1434 when the Medici's
year-long exile was concluded with their repatriation by a
new and amicable Signoria. 4 In 1429 Filelfo had come to
Florence with Medici support to teach at the University,
but after 1431 their friendship had cooled so much that in
1433-34 he penned attacks on the exiled family which
were not only vicious but widely regarded as obscene.15
When, on 3rd November, 1434, a pro-Medici special
council, or Balia, banished Rinaldo degli Albizzi and his
accomplices, Filelfo tardily recognised his own situation
in Florence as at the least precarious, and this, it would
appear, prompted his conciliatory poem.16 (pp 219-220)
The first problem with Sperling’s thesis is that the manuscript entry (now found in additional manuscripts) has since been associated with Lorenzo Magnifico’s tutor, Gentile Becchi (1420/30-1497), although it is unclear if he was truly the author of the David inscription (or just compiling various poetic fragments, not all his own) nor when it was written, but an early date now seems out of the question. For the subsequent literature on this see: Francesco Caglioti. Donatello e i Medici: Storia della David e della Giuditta. (Fondazione Carlo Marchi: Studi, 14.) Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2000; Roger J. Crum, "Donatello's Bronze David and the Question of Foreign versus Domestic Tyranny," Renaissance Studies, 10 (1996) 440-450; Sarah Blake McHam, "Donatello's Bronze David and Judith as Metaphors of Medici Rule in Florence," Art Bulletin, 83 (2001) 32-47; Allie Terry, "Donatello's decapitations and the rhetoric of beheading in Medicean Florence," Renaissance Studies, 23 (2009) 609-638.

What has gone unexamined however is Filelfo’s heretofore unpublished poem and its date. Sperling logically posits a date of 1434, Filelfo’s last year in Florence, but she ignores a key item in the poem that would date it to after Lorenzo “vecchio” Medici’s death in September 23, 1440. I would then posit Filelfo wrote this after the Anghiari debacle in June and Lorenzo’s death in late September (the poem itself is dated Nov. 10th, a little more than a month later, giving him time to compose and send it to Florence), on behalf of the Albizzi faction exiles (particularly Palla Strozzi)? But why place himself in Florence if clearly in Milan? First onto the poem and Lorenzo’s death:

Stanza 1 opens with “heavenly triumphant title” and closes with “temples budding with redeeming laurel” (Templa frondenti redemite lauro), the Lauro being the latin cognate of Lorenzo; redeeming laurel (=victory) and heavenly triumph all indicating rebirth, but obviously in a Chirsitian context of the resurrection (see also stanza 19 “Rise Lorenzo” (Surge Laurenti. Stanza 18 is more explicit in connecting Lorenzo to death: Nonne Laurenti Medices obibis . Given these references to Lorenzo’s death there seems to be little doubt as to the occasion for this poem.

This poem needs to be placed in context of Filelfo’s rhetorical diatribes against Cosimo, which Blanchard provides via his analysis of the contemporary Satyrae:
…the oration composed in 1437 that attacks Cosimo de' Medici and urges the exiled Florentine aristocrats to take heart by placing their hopes in the assistance of Filippo Maria Visconti (1392-1447), who would in a short space of time become Filelfo's patron in Milan. (15) The Commentationes Florentinae de exilio , a somewhat later work begun in 1440 and never finished, has been examined as a treatise of philosophical consolation that urges an attitude of resignation in the wake of the defeat of the aristocratic partisans--whose leader, Rinaldo degli Albizzi (1370-1442), had been among Filelfo's correspondents and the subject of one of his satires--at the Battle of Anghiari in June of 1440. (16) More difficult to categorize simply from an ideological or political viewpoint are Filelfo's Satyrae, composed over a much longer period of time and, as we shall see, containing opinions and counsels that are at times contradictory. (17) What has not been fully appreciated, however, is the degree to which all of these works rely on several of the classical accounts of Cynic philosophy, texts that at the time were in the earliest stages of their recovery, as well as with one of the Skeptical works of Sextus Empiricus. (18) Attention to this context of Filelfo's ethical discourse will allow us to reexamine the struggle of values that occurred in Florentine history with the emergence of the Medici party, and to suggest that Filelfo's alternative politics went far beyond a simple taking of sides with his aristocratic patrons. There is no disputing that Filelfo was an active and strident critic of the Medici party and its leader, but this should not prevent us from discovering messages in his work that transcend the factional struggle that formed the immediate context of his writings from 1430 to 1450. Filelfo's project, fanciful as it may seem, was nothing less than a provocation to his patrons--and eventually even to Cosimo himself when Filelfo composed a satiric palinode to him--to set aside their partisan pursuit of a politics of interest groups and private affiliations in favor of a concept of citizenship and political identity based on the Cynic notion of world citizenship and on Stoic theories of virtue. (W. Scott Blanchard. "Patrician Sages and the Humanist Cynic: Francesco Filelfo and the Ethics of World Citizenship." Renaissance Quarterly 60.4 (2007): 1107-1169)


Where does this poem fit in within Filelfo’s anti-Cosimo or perhaps more nuanced literature, per the bolded text above? Filelfo was a master of consolatory work (see the Marcello work you are well acquinted with) and the death of Cosimo’s beloved brother, a regent of the studio in 1431 while Filelfo was still there, might have seemed an opportunity for a conciliatory gesture following the ignomious defeat of the Exiles at Anghiai two month’s earlier; perhaps he even imagined Cosimo in a place of weakness without his brother to help him co-rule? Either way, the place listed on the poem as Florence is simply wrong or it was ironic in that Filelfo meant him and the exiles’ hearts were still in Florence, as otherwise the exiles had no new homes as of yet (Strozzi of course ends up in Padua/Arqua, while Filelfo had already found a permanent home in Milan). Filelfo is apologetic to a degree because he was the one fanning the flames between the factions before 1434 and then exhorted the exiles to adoption an alliance with Visconti, thereby leading to the events that culminated in Anghiari – what Sperling refers to as Filelfo’s self-admitted “misdeeds” in the poem. His true patron, however, was not Rinaldo Albizzi, the leader of the exiles, but Palla Strozzi whom did not share the same sentence of infamy placed on the other exiles in 1434 and interesting enough he was not one of the ones painted upside down by Castagno on the Bargello following Anghiari. In fact there seems to be an allusion to Palla in stanza 15, which may point to the poem’s real subject:
Non Athenarum inperio parare [Athens is prepared not to rule]

Who is “Athens” if not Palla, i.e., derived from Pallas Athena (in the same punning way he refers to Cosimo as Mundus)?

Going back to Blanchard’s work on Filelfo’s relevant Satires we can see the complicating way in which Filelfo pitted Strozzi versus Cosimo:
Satire 4.1 examines the contrasting figures of Palla and Cosimo from an imagined point in time when Cosimo, after a brief incarceration in Florence, had just left the city to spend his eleven months in exile in Venice and Padua. Beginning as a poem addressed to Cosimo--who is addressed as "Mundus," punning by way of Latin on the Greek term kosmos--the satire takes up the Stoic theme of the wise man who rules himself and his passions, in contrast to the foolish man whose impulses are unconstrained. Despite Cosimo's use of money to win friends and influence people, the poem notes that during his time of greatest need Cosimo's friends have deserted him. Filelfo makes many of the same points in a taunting letter to Cosimo composed in 1440 on the eve of the battle of Anghiari, a letter that mocks Cosimo's "egalitarianism," that is, his demagoguery in seeking the "people's" support, even as he refuses to allow himself to be constrained by the same laws that bind the citizens of Florence. (37) Most importantly, the satire suggests that it was Palla Strozzi who secured the more lenient sentence of exile for Cosimo, rather than seeking his death, as others had apparently wished. (38) Ironically, Filelfo argues that Palla should have followed his instincts and allowed outrage at Cosimo's aggrandizement of power to shape the position he took on the fates of Cosimo and other exiled Medici family members; Filelfo even suggests that Cosimo manipulated what the latter knew to be Palla's forgiving nature.


All of this suggests that in the unpublished poem under consideration Filelfo was still pushing for Palla to be pardoned and allowed to return home. As the richest Florentine in the 1427 castato he certainly had the means to hire Filelfo’s pen for this cause, although there was apparently a genuine friendship between them.

But there hardly seems to be a conciliatory note in the 'Vincite fortes' ('Conquer, o strong ones!') ending each stanza and to whom is that directed at? Surely the same taunt one finds in the Satires, that the people were not really behind Cosimo (and could rise up against him) and thus Filelfo’s usual method of praise/blame is at work here on Cosimo (and yet Fiellfo even accepts some of the blame himself). Palla is still a paragon of virtue, blameless for the rebel actions of his fellow exiles (with Filelfo apparently taking a share of that blame) and so Cosimo should act magnimously and take Palla – who no longer wants to rule – back into Florentine society. Of course if that was the intent of ther poem that was a ridiculous hope after Anghiari – Cosimo wasn’t about to let any of the exiles back into the city as Castagno was busily paining their hung effigies (Filefo only concedes this in letters by 1444).

Finally, what of Sperling’s now implausible theory that the David inscription was mimicked by Filelfo in 1434? What if Donatello’s David post-dates 1440 (there is a loose concesnsus it was made in the 1440s) but before 1450 when Filelfo was oddly united with Cosimo’s friend Francesco Sforza (after which point it would have been in the interest of both Filelfo and Cosimo to let their animosity die down)? The David inscription’s ‘Vincite cives’/ ‘conquer citizens’ would then be a response to Filelfo’s 'Vincite fortes'/('Conquer, o strong ones!', with its emphasis on Republican ideology (“citizens”) versus the chivalric tones (“strong”) of the Albizzi/magnate faction (keep in mind Bruni’s treatise on knighthood was dedicated to Albizzi). In fact the entire inscription is more relevant for 1440 than 1434, as the latter just saw the internal urban enemies of the Medici exiled, but 1440 saw both internal and external enemies defeated (again, see Crum’s "Donatello's Bronze David and the Question of Foreign versus Domestic Tyranny", which pleads for both understandings which in turn fits the events of 1440) . Yet in 1440 the actual power to be defeated was the “Goliath” Duchy of Milan lorded over by Filippo Visconti, with his general Piccinino leading the charge at Anghiari, thus the pointedness of the inscription in that direction: “God crushes the wrath of an enormous foe. Behold! a boy overcame a great tyrant. Conquer, o citizens!”

Phaeded

PS One more throw away idea here: Becchi, a possible author of the David inscription, would have been perhaps 15 years old (taking the mid-range for his birth) after Anghiari and like the later Ficino, a precocious literati in the Medici household nourished by them, so perhaps Cosimo would have found him all the more fitting, as a Florentine youth, to have been the one to have penned the simple David inscription (particularly in contrast to Filelfo’s age); Behold a boy…

Re: 3-fold "Lorenzo" ... game inventors ? Or what ...

#4
Phaeded wrote:Huck,
Good to see you posting more frequently again.
Thanks, my absence had technical reasons only, and still I've only a slow internet connection.
Well, I argued, that Lorenzo had some importance, possibly more as usually considered (as "usual considered" I see the statement "just a banker", which I found in various not very well researched commentaries and which I took as a "general view").

It seemed to me, that Lorenzo got the commission to have an eye on cultural developments inside Florence, balancing and satisfying the intellectuals. As the "Trionfi customs arrival" in Florence was an "intellectual field", it might well be (my opinion), that Lorenzo personally had technically more part in this specific "cultural feature" as Cosimo. As our special question about the "Trionfi cards" is just concerning a lower part of the more complex general "Trionfi customs", we may well find, that Lorenzo had in this context responsibilities and not Cosimo.

[... typical hero-fanatic history tends to write "Caesar conquered Gallium", but it were Caesar and 10.000s of helpers, similar it's wrong to assume, that always Cosimo made all and everything in Florence]

Lorenzo supervised the Studio (1434 till 1440), after his death the young Piero (24 years) mainly took this part of the Medici jobs (one might address this specific part as "public relations" or "propaganda", I think). For Piero we see, that he immediately (letter of January 1441) after Lorenzo's death (September 1440) cared for "illuminated "Trionfi poem editions", it may be assumed that he possibly followed with a project already started by Lorenzo.
The same hand or mind, which cared for the existence of "illuminated Trionfi editions", might have given the impulse to create "playing cards in Trionfi style". Well, this is the one, that we search, and Lorenzo looks for the moment as a good choice.

For Piero: In the later development we see, that Piero's wife Lucrezia Tornuabuoni had sponsoring actions for literature and public shows (Giovanni festivities), another part of these "public relations" jobs. Although Piero was older than his brother Giovanni, the better health of Giovanni caused, that Cosimo considered Giovanni as his follower. Piero instead had a lot of intellectual interests with much love for books.

*********

For the David figure we have, that the first commission for this figure went under way in 1408-1409.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_%28Donatello%29
This was a time, when the hostile-to-Florence Milan had a very bad phase. Perhaps there was some Florentine mind, who thought of Goliath as association of Milan (some assumed, that Florentine poison had killed Giangaleazzo; as I see, you had a similar idea as me). This same anti-Milan idea might have returned with the battle of Anghiari (1440), but also with Francesco Sforza 1450 (Milan was conquered with some Florentine help).
It's also true for the situation, when Michelangelo got the commission of his David (made between 1501-1504), which then - when ready - was perceived as a national symbol. Milan was crashed by France (1500), and France became allied with the post-Savanorola-regime of Florence.

Well, that's a lot of different situations.

If I read ...
"In domo magnifici Pieri Medicis sub Davide eneo :
Victor est quisquis patriam tuetur
Frangit immanis Deus hostis iras :
En puer grandem domuit tiramnum
Vincite cives"
... I read "Piero de' Medici" first. My bad Latin translates something like "in the house of the magnificent Piero etc. ".
Well, I ask me, when Piero started to talk of "his house" ... after the death of Cosimo? Or earlier?

I've difficulties to relate this to a very early date. An inscription, "which once accompanied" the David statue, deserves the question "from when (?) till when (?) it accompanied" the statue. It's not naturally given, that it was originally part of the work of Donatello. A little bit it sounds as a praise of son Lorenzo (* 1449) as a "true David" (and this would have been likely long after his birth) and I fear, that this has nothing to do with our theme ... .-(

Or at least, it seems to me a little bit confusing here. The dating of the object is too insecure. The observation itself is interesting.

I think of a "natural row" of events:

1. If Lorenzo de' Medici (I) (+ 1440) made something, which led to the invention of Trionfi cards ...

2. then a second "Lorenzo de' Medici" (II)(* 1449) might have been triggered by the story in his own family (and by the same name "Lorenzo") to make himself also something with cards and to improve the older idea (somehow he "made" Minchiate cards)

3. and a third Lorenzo de Medici (III) in the same family, who after a longer Medici pause in Florence (1494-1513) returned as a new ruler (together with his uncle Giuliano) to Florence might have felt, that he should also do something with playing cards (Germini-change, whatever this was).

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

The 3rd Lorenzo hadn't really good opportunity to act before 1512. Nonetheless he would have known, that Alfonso in Ferrara in 1505 had some success with the new game "Tarochi", which somehow replaced something, which was similar and which was called Ludus Triumphorum. So he might have been inspired to change the name of his game, too.
We have the fact, that Germini/Minchiate evolved to the National game of Toscana later, first preferring Germini and later Minchiate again.

If this understanding would be true, we would get a lower date (1512) for the use of a name of a game, "Germini", somehow related to the highest numbered (35) card in the game, "Gemini".
This would be somehow a big progress in the aim of our researches.

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

Medici Gemini

Curiously Cosimo got the name "Cosimo", cause he had a real twin-brother "Damiano", and this cause of the saints Cosmas and Damian, which were twins. This was especially remarkable, as Cosmas and Damian (the saints) were physicians (in other Italian words: "Medici").
MEDICI, Cosimo de’ (Cosimo il Vecchio). – Nacque a Firenze il 10 apr. 1389 da Giovanni di Bicci (Averardo) e da Piccarda de’ Bueri. Il M. festeggiava la propria nascita il 27 settembre, giorno in cui ricorreva la festività dei santi Cosma e Damiano, dai quali il M. e il fratello gemello Damiano, che si ritiene sia morto subito dopo la nascita, avevano preso il nome.
Damiano died soon, and Cosimo got the brother Lorenzo, and as a good two-brothers-team they managed Florence as known.
As a two-brothers-team of the next Medici generation we have Piero and Giovanni, which was followed by Lorenzo and Giuliano, the sons of Piero (the 3rd brothers-team). Lorenzo's wife got, after the birth of a daughter, also twins, but both died. It's not unusual, that twins are more than once in families, which once had twins.
Children of Lorenzo de' Medici
  • Lucrezia Maria Romola de' Medici (Florence, 4 August 1470 – 15 November 1553); married 10 September 1486 Jacopo Salviati and had 10 children, including Cardinal Giovanni Salviati, Cardinal Bernardo Salviati, Maria Salviati (mother of Cosimo I de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany), and Francesca Salviati (mother of Pope Leo XI)
    Twins who died after birth (March 1471)
    Piero di Lorenzo de' Medici (Florence, 15 February 1472 – Garigliano River, 28 December 1503), ruler of Florence after his father's death, called "the Unfortunate"
    Maria Maddalena Romola de' Medici (Florence, 25 July 1473 – Rome, 2 December 1528), married 25 February 1487 Franceschetto Cybo (illegitimate son of Pope Innocent VIII) and had seven children
    Contessina Beatrice de' Medici (23 September 1474 - September 1474), died young
    Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici (Florence, 11 December 1475 – Rome, 1 December 1521), ascended to the Papacy as Leo X on 9 March 1513
    Luisa de' Medici (Florence, 25 January 1477 – July 1488), also called Luigia, was betrothed to Giovanni de' Medici il Popolano but died young
    Contessina Antonia Romola de' Medici (Pistoia, 16 January 1478 – Rome, 29 June 1515); married 1494 Piero Ridolfi (1467 - 1525) and had five children, including Cardinal Niccolò Ridolfi
    Giuliano di Lorenzo de' Medici, Duke of Nemours (Florence, 12 March 1479 – Florence, 17 March 1516), created Duke of Nemours in 1515 by King Francis I of France
Lorenzo also adopted his nephew Giulio, the illegitimate son of his slain brother Giuliano. Giulio later became Pope Clement VII.
The famous attack on the Medici brothers Lorenzo and Giuliano in 1478 had the natural follow-up of an idealization, which somehow got mythical dimensions. Although Lorenzo and Giuliano were not twins, it seems possible, that they were compared to the heroes Castor and Pollux, the mythical Leda-sons, from which one couldn't die and the other could die. The result in the myth was an agreement, that the part, who could die, got a piece of the not-dying-quality of his brother. Castor and Pollux became an antique cult, which later in Christian time was transformed to the adoration of the saints Cosmas and Damian, long before the Medici had in their family a twin-birth with two boys, which were called Cosimo and Damiano.

In reality Lorenzo got 11 months after the attack a son, which he named Giuliano like his deceased brother. And then appeared, that an illegitimate boy had been born in Florence, and the mother claimed, that this was a son of the deceased brother Giuliano. This one got the name Giulio, and Lorenzo adopted him and integrated him in his own family. Somehow he had now twins in a rather similar age (10 months difference), but both were actually only cousins.

Somehow Lorenzo got in this way 4 "sons":
Piero 1472 - ruler in Florence 1492-1494, died 1503
Giovanni 1475 - Pope Leo X. 1513-1521
Giulio 1478 - Pope Clemens VII. 1523-1534
Giuliano 1479 - Gonfalonier of the church 1513-1516

Piero lost Florence in 1494, and drowned after a lost battle in December 1503. His "rights" to rule in Florence went to his son Lorenzo (III, the GERMINI-Lorenzo), but in the situation of 1503 these "rights" didn't mean much.

But in August/September 1512, when the French army was lost in Italy and attempted to escape to France, and Pope Julius sent cardinal Giovanni (later Pope Leo X) with a Spanish army against Florence, then things had changed. The resisting city of Prato was conquered (August 29 1512) in the worst manner and with estimated 6000 victims. The desperate Florence opened its doors without fights

First entered Lorenzo with his uncle Giuliano September 1 1512. Cardinal Giovanni and Giulio, a longer time already working together on the battlefield, followed 2 weeks later. So the "4 sons of Lorenzo (one adopted, one replacing his father)" arrived back, prolonging the rule of the Medici in Florence for further 224 years.
They behaved friendly, and Florence was delighted, that things evolved in this peaceful manner. The Medici were - more or less - welcome. A series of amusements and festivities increased the good mood. Resistance was small, two persons plotted an attack and were hanged. At the day of the execution (February 26, 1513) arrived the news, that Pope Julius had died in Rome the day before.
All were so impressed by cardinal Giovanni, that he was by far the favorite in the following election. At March 11 he became Pope Leo X. Giulio became cardinal (September 1513; and later Pope Clemens) and archbishop of Florence (which gave him rights the help ruling in Florence), also a nephew Innocenzo Cybo was declared cardinal, born to a sister of the brothers, who had married the son of the earlier pope Innocenz VIII. Guiliano became Gonfalonier for the Roman church (highest military function), 20-years-old Lorenzo (III; GERMINI-Lorenzo) became ruler in Florence with some educative help of archbishop Giulio in the background.

This happened to the 4 brothers.

TWINS

When Giulio and Innocenzo, the relatives of pope Leo X., became cardinal at September 23, also two others were made cardinal. One of them was Bernardo da Dovizi da Bibbiena, also called "Bibbiena or Babbiena Tarlato (1470-1520)
http://www2.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios1513.htm#Dovizi .... biography
Early life. In his youth, he entered the service of Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici, travelled with him throught Europe and settled in the courts of Urbino and Roma. He participated in the wars against Urbino as legate of the papal army. Pope Leo X, shortly after elevation to the pontificate, named him protonotary apostolic and treasurer general.

Cardinalate. Created cardinal deacon in the consistory of September 23, 1513; received the red hat and the deaconry of S. Maria in Portico Octaviae, September 29, 1513. Participated in the ninth to twelfth sessions of the Fifth Lateran Council. Prior commendatario of S. Maria Maddalena di Crema, diocese of Piacenza, September 12, 1514. Administrator of the see of Pozzuoli, 1514 (3). Prefect of the Fabric of the patriarchal Vatican basilica, 1515. As a close and trusted collaborator of the pontiff, he was in charge of all the papal correspondence; the pope used to call him jokingly the "alter papa". Legate in France, 1515 to 1518. Abbot commendatario of Aulps from 1516. Legatea latere and president of the papal army against the invasion of the States of the Church by Francesco Maria Della Rovere; and for the peace among the Christian princes, April 1, 1517. Legate in Umbria. Administrator of the see of Coria, November 4, 1517. Administrator of the see of Coutances, September 9, 1519 until his death. Named legate to France again, January 9, 1520; his mission was to secure French participation in the expedition against the Turks; died in Rome shortly after returning from his legation. He was a friend and protector of Raffaello Sanzio. He wrote the Calandria, a comedy that made him famous in all of Europe (4).

Death. November 9, 1520 (5), Rome, under suspicion of having being poisoned (6). Buried in the church of S. Maria in Aracoeli, Rome (7). The funeral oration was delivered by Latinus Iuvenalis, canon of the patriarchal Vatican basilica.
The Calandria got my attention. I found a German description.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Calandria
It's a TWIN comedy ... something like this I've searched.

«in prosa, non in versi; moderna, non antiqua; vulgare, non latina» ... It's said to be the first Ialian comedy in prose.
It had his first appearance at February 6 in 1513, in other words, when the "4 brothers" had already arrived in Florence, but Pope Julius hadn't died till then. It was played at the court in Urbino, not in Florence, but the play involves the cities Florence and Rome.
The twins are the children of Demetrio of Methoni (the city Methoni, 300 years a Venetian harbor at the Peloponnese, was conquered by Turks in August 1500), the boy Lidio and the girl Santilla, and both look very similar. When the children are 6 year old, the father died, and the children are parted by destiny (the Turks). In their life journey they search other, and this involves a lot of erotic situations, a plan, to get some money, a magician, and some foolish lovers.

A twin comedy as a typus was already known by Plautus' "Menaechmi" played in January 1486 in Ferrara and repeated for the wedding of Alfonso d'Este with Anna Sforza in 1491.

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

Well, this is not ready, but enough for the moment
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: 3-fold "Lorenzo" ... game inventors ? Or what ...

#5
Huck wrote:
If I read ...
"In domo magnifici Pieri Medicis sub Davide eneo :
Victor est quisquis patriam tuetur
Frangit immanis Deus hostis iras :
En puer grandem domuit tiramnum
Vincite cives"
... I read "Piero de' Medici" first. My bad Latin translates something like "in the house of the magnificent Piero etc. ".
Well, I ask me, when Piero started to talk of "his house" ... after the death of Cosimo? Or earlier?
Hey Huck,
Just to be clear, the Piero reference is not part of the inscription but part of the description of the inscription (or rather whwere the sculpture/inscription was located), but because of where this falls chronologically in Becchi's notebook some do date the David to after Cosimo's death when Piero ran the family. However, much of the stylistic interpretation of the sculpture places it earlier in Donatello's career, not at the very end (just 2 years after Cosimo's death, in 1466). Too much uncertainty here, but the concensus tends earlier.
Huck wrote
I think of a "natural row" of events:
1. If Lorenzo de' Medici (I) (+ 1440) made something, which led to the invention of Trionfi cards ...
The only sure commision we have in 1440 is Bernardetto Medici having his "protege" Castagno paint the Albizzi faction as hanged men after the battle (see Spencer's Andrea Del Castagno: And His Patrons), but I strongly feel one of the old guard Medici humanists was put up to the task for the initial tarot right after Anghiari. Niccoli died in 1437, Travasari was dead the year before in 1439...so that leaves quarrelsome Poggio and the enigmatic Bruni. I lean towards the latter for a variety of reasons....

Phaeded

Re: 3-fold "Lorenzo" ... game inventors ? Or what ...

#6
Phaeded wrote:
Huck wrote
I think of a "natural row" of events:
1. If Lorenzo de' Medici (I) (+ 1440) made something, which led to the invention of Trionfi cards ...
The only sure commision we have in 1440 is Bernardetto Medici having his "protege" Castagno paint the Albizzi faction as hanged men after the battle (see Spencer's Andrea Del Castagno: And His Patrons), but I strongly feel one of the old guard Medici humanists was put up to the task for the initial tarot right after Anghiari. Niccoli died in 1437, Travasari was dead the year before in 1439...so that leaves quarrelsome Poggio and the enigmatic Bruni. I lean towards the latter for a variety of reasons....

Phaeded
I've read somewhere about "Lorenzo's cycle" (and I thought, that this expression aimed at a specific group of persons), but I got a this place no indication, who belonged to this group.
I see as the central event the council, and this was "bought by Lorenzo". Cosimo in his dominating role naturally couldn't allow himself to go to Ferrara and leave all his responsibilities in Florence alone for weeks or months. Lorenzo as a "second most important man" had to do this.

When Pero Tafur visited Ferrara ...

.... for the second time in the winter 1439, he arrived just in the time, when the council was moving from Ferrrara to Florence. Worries were there, that troops of Filippo Maria Visconti might attack the travelers. Pero Tafur needed money, and "all the bankers had already left".
I LEFT Padua and travelled along the canals, and since that country is very close to Venice, they collect the water into lakes, some of fresh and some of salt water, but these lakes have a very evil smell, and they call them the marshes, and when in speaking the Italians wish to refer to anything as noxious or stinking, they liken it to those marshes. On drawing near to Ferrara, they told me that the Pope was wishful to depart, and it was so, and on arrival I found the Pope preparing to set out for Florence. As soon as I arrived I waited on the Emperor of the Greeks, who rejoiced greatly to see me again, and I saw also the Pope's progress which was in this wise. All the archbishops, bishops, and other prelates and clergy, went on foot in procession with the crosses. Then followed the cardinals on horseback, staffs in hand, in order of precedence, and after them came twelve horses with crimson trappings, one bearing the umbrella, one the chair and another the cushion, and so on until the end. The last horse was covered with brocade, and on a rich silver saddle was a casket containing the Blessed Sacrament. This horse had a silver bell, and two prelates led it by the reins. Then came the Pope himself, upon a horse with crimson trappings. He was vested as for Mass, wearing a bishop's mitre and giving his blessing on one side and the other, while men cast coins into the street, so that those who picked them up might gain pardons. This was done to prevent the crowds from pressing upon the Pope, whose horse was led by the Marquis of Ferrara and the Count of Urbino.

It was rumoured that the Duke of Milan was lying in wait to capture the Pope, so that the Marquis escorted him that day to a hermitage a mile from there with a great company of armed men, making it seem that the Pope was travelling with troops to one of his cities, where he had arranged great festivities. But in fact he rode with him in a different direction, and in two days brought him safely to Florence. They say that for this service, and others that the Marquis did, the Pope reduced the tribute payable by the Marquisate to 3,000 ducats, and confirmed all its privileges, as appears in the Bull which the Marquis had engraved in stone and set up in the great church at Ferrara. I remained two days in Ferrara and desired to depart, and I could not do otherwise than go to Florence, for all the banks were closed and the bankers had gone away.
From this I conclude, that there were a lot of bankers during the council, cause a lot of important persons arrived there.
In Germany during the council of Constance it is told, that there 100.000's of persons and alone 4.000 prostitutes. These numbers - true or untrue - are surely not relevant for Ferrara. Ferrara as the meeting place was concluded relative short before and in Basel had been the alternative council running for almost 5 years already. Filippo disturbed with military actions near Ferrara (Bologna), likely making some possible visitors reconsider, if they really wanted be in Ferrara just now. The summer was lazy, in autumn arrived a plague. And there were natural communication difficulties, and probable Ferrara's economical base didn't allow too much sponsoring actions.

But - it seems - that there were enough banker there and 700 Greeks, who had taken a long dangerous journey to be there.

Giovanni di Cosimo de' Medici, Piero's younger brother, has a "From 1438 he directed the branch of the family bank in Ferrara" in his wiki-biography. (1438 is the year of the council in Ferrara).
Giovanni was 17 years then. Well, perhaps he was send to observe, if the business there looked promising, and if a greater engagement might be interesting.

The article "Medici bank", more careful written than the Giovanni article ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medici_Bank
... doesn't know the word "Ferrara", the Medici have no branch there.

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

I detected a German article about the Medici bank in Basel ...
http://kweissen.ch/docs/weissen%20-%201 ... 0Basel.pdf
Kurt Weissen, Die Bank von Cosimo und Lorenzo de' Medici am Basler Konzil (1433-1444)

... it was installed in 1433. The article explains a sort of "system", which the Medici used to accompany Council projects as the banker of the popes. There were bankers, who visited councils, which worked with houses of woods, and there were the Medici, who rented noble places in good local positions.

When Pope Eugen was in Florence, there was a second Medici bank in Florence, and it was operated by persons from the Medici bank in Rome, who knew their clients. Similar it was in Basel, which was installed in 1433 by Benci, but soon received Roberto Martelli, who had worked in the Medici bank in Rome.

According the German article (p. 362) this Roberto Martelli caused a scandal .... and this is of special interest for us ... in Basel, cause he forged a council decision. It was decided by a majority in May 1437 by the council, that the Greek delegation should be invited to Avignon. The minority with another opinion suggested either Undine or Florence. A box with the official seal of the council was broken at the bottom and an "official letter" was forged, which spread this version, and not the Avignon suggestion. This was naturally detected, and an accusation against cardinal Cesarini and others, between them Martelli (who had played a central role), was done. Martelli resolved the case with a fine and had then a bad time in Basel, but when he soon later arrived in Ferrara as the new chief of the Medici bank there (where the other part of the counil was moved to, he got honors from the Greek Emperor, from the German emperor and not to forget from the pope, and in 1439 he got a participation of the business o the Medici. So a lot of people were happy about the forgery. And after 1439 he became the most important man in the Medici bank in Rome.

I detected another article ...
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1 ... cess=false
Roger J. Crum: "Roberto Martelli, The Council of Florence and the Medici Chapel"

This article notes, that a Roberto Martelli had some function in the creation of the Medici chapel made by Benozzo Gozzoli (1459-64). From this the author starts to explore the role of Roberto Martelli, and he notes, that Roberto Martelli already in 1436 had engaged for a council in Florence, which he suggested to Cosimo in a letter. He notes the forgery attempt, but gives it not a specific attention.
The author thinks, that Roberto Martelli is the man, who leads the horse of Piero de Medici in the Gozzoli pictures.

Image


Crum arguments, that "Martelli" means sword bearer (the figure has a sword), and that Martelli was interested, to be presented in a humble position.
His position is direct after the group with the youngest of the 3 holy kings:



This page, however, identifies Martelli at anther location (figure 21)
http://www.palazzo-medici.it/mediateca/ ... scheda=228





It has NO IDENTIFICATION of Lorenzo the Elder. I don't know, perhaps the two parts of the family had trouble with each other in this time?

*********************
Anyway, it looks, as if Martelli was the "earliest" driving force for the council in Florence. Giovanni di Medici was 17, when send to Ferrara as "banker", likely he got advice to learn the business. Lorenzo, I think, turned up later in the year in Ferrara, and finished the idea, that Martelli had prepared ... at least so it looks to me in the moment.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: 3-fold "Lorenzo" ... game inventors ? Or what ...

#7
One picture don't come, at least in my browser...

Image

It's here, if you don't get it ...
http://a-tarot.eu/p/2013/martelli.jpg

This would be Martelli, leading Piero, if the identification is right.

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

A general point about Lorenzo the Elder is, that both brothers, Cosimo and Lorenzo, had the same money, and they decided to keep it together in the same bank. So both had the same rights. When Lorenzo died (1440), his heir, Pierfrancesco, was 10 years old and lived in the same household with his uncle, at least till 1450. How they divided later, that is not clear to me.
Wiki states, that Pierfrancesco sided with Piero first and then took opposition against him (1466). Piero accepted his excuse some time later. Lorenzo adopted the 2 sons (* 1463 and 1467) later, when Pierfrancesco died (1476). The both became later foes of Piero de Medici in 1494.

If this is true, one wonders, why Lorenzo the elder and Pierfrancesco don't appear in the identification list.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: 3-fold "Lorenzo" ... game inventors ? Or what ...

#8
Huck,
Cosimo and his brother Lorenzo were hardly at cross purposes so it shouldn't bother us too much if we can't tell who commissioned or did what. I guess I don't see the point on dwelling on that problem without more evidence.

As for the Crum article - read it a few months ago and I too was struck by his theory about Martelli. A couple of points I'll add to Crum:
1. When Pope Eugene entered Florence, I believe for the St. John's procession (I need to verify my source), it was Cosimo who lead the pope's horse on foot, just as Martelli does in the Gozzoli (i.e., Cosimo is the humble protector of the Pope; thus Martelli for the Medici - made all the more explicit with the drawn dagger). Although he looks like a foot servant of sorts, there is no question that the "horse leader", likely Martelli, is in a very privledged position in this painting. Why? On to point #2....
2. In 1434, right after the Medici were invited back into Florence, the Albizzi attempted an armed coup, stalled to some degree by Palla Strozzi's refusal to back that armed option. Filelfo, in his "On Exiles", blames Strozzi for extending his good-natured virtue too far to Cosimo and then blames Pope Eugene for having talked Albizzi into stepping down. Although the latter happened, before that there was in fact an urban brawl that centered on a Martelli palazzo as they were the ones who stopped the armed Albizzi party from continuing on to the Medici. There is no question in mind that Piero Medici is celebrating in the Gozzoli chapel painting his family''s close ties to the pope, the Council and their primary operative who both made both the Council possible and put down the 1434 putsch: The Martelli.

That both the Church and the Albizzi were primary actors in the 1440 event of Anghiari and would have engendered something like the trionfi deck is extremely plausible.

Phaeded

Re: 3-fold "Lorenzo" ... game inventors ? Or what ...

#9
Phaeded wrote:Huck,
Cosimo and his brother Lorenzo were hardly at cross purposes so it shouldn't bother us too much if we can't tell who commissioned or did what. I guess I don't see the point on dwelling on that problem without more evidence.
Well, that's a problem. But Lorenzo got the commission to supervise the Studio, and this seems to be central to cooperate with the intellectual circles of the city. Likely Lorenzo had some personal affection and talents to this role. The only stupid point is, that it's difficult to get a good biography of him.
As for the Crum article - read it a few months ago and I too was struck by his theory about Martelli. A couple of points I'll add to Crum:
1. When Pope Eugene entered Florence, I believe for the St. John's procession (I need to verify my source) ...
Before the council he entered end of January 1439 (if you mean this), that's hardly the date of the Giovanni procession, I would think.
... , it was Cosimo who lead the pope's horse on foot, just as Martelli does in the Gozzoli (i.e., Cosimo is the humble protector of the Pope; thus Martelli for the Medici - made all the more explicit with the drawn dagger). Although he looks like a foot servant of sorts, there is no question that the "horse leader", likely Martelli, is in a very privledged position in this painting. Why? On to point #2....
2. In 1434, right after the Medici were invited back into Florence, the Albizzi attempted an armed coup, stalled to some degree by Palla Strozzi's refusal to back that armed option. Filelfo, in his "On Exiles", blames Strozzi for extending his good-natured virtue too far to Cosimo and then blames Pope Eugene for having talked Albizzi into stepping down. Although the latter happened, before that there was in fact an urban brawl that centered on a Martelli palazzo as they were the ones who stopped the armed Albizzi party from continuing on to the Medici. There is no question in mind that Piero Medici is celebrating in the Gozzoli chapel painting his family''s close ties to the pope, the Council and their primary operative who both made both the Council possible and put down the 1434 putsch: The Martelli.

That both the Church and the Albizzi were primary actors in the 1440 event of Anghiari and would have engendered something like the trionfi deck is extremely plausible.

Phaeded
I get, that the Casa Martelli got a heraldic device in c. 1440 made by Donatelli, possibly relating to the new honors earned in 1437.
http://www.wga.hu/art/d/donatell/2_matu ... artell.jpg

I don't get the scene with the Martelli Palazzo. Can you help me?

Well, in the current research situation it's an option, that possibly the Anghiari battle caused the first production of decks called "Trionfi", but easily it might have been in the year before, during the council. And naturally we also can't exclude totally, that there were Trionfi decks before 1439. And we don't know, if before the "Trionfi decks" were not decks, which in character and value were similar to later Trionfi decks, but just never got the name "Trionfi" ... like for instance the Michelino deck, which was named a "ludus triumphorum" around 25 years or more after its production.
The number of decks "before 1439" - although now much higher than 2 years ago thanks to the articles of Franco Pratesi - is still rather limited. Comparing this number with the better known period 1439-1448, we have also only very few notes of Trionfi decks then. It might be still just statistical accident, that we didn't found Trionfi notes before September 1440 and before the battle of Anghiari. .
We would be careless, if we think otherwise.

That, what makes 1439/1440 plausible as the date of the "first Trionfi deck", that is the parallel development in the popularity of illuminated editions of the Trionfi poem with its accompanying effects, that similar motifs were used for Cassone and other everyday art since the early 1440s.

... :-) ... anyway, this thread is called "3-fold Lorenzo", and the intention is actually to observe the series "Trionfi" - "Minchiate" - "Germini" as a possible, but only hypothetical, Medici-family product. Persons around Lorenzo Magnifico and Lorenzo, duke of Urbino, might have been triggered to suggest new deck forms later, cause another Lorenzo (Vecchio) had before caused an initial affect for the Trionfi cards.
This is a hypothesis on a natural, often observable flow in families. Persons proceed with something, when already earlier another member of the family made something similar. This behavior is especially probable, if the earlier member of the family had the same name (in this case "Lorenzo"), which creates a sort of identification. This phenomenon is carried by natural communication, it's not mysterious.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: 3-fold "Lorenzo" ... game inventors ? Or what ...

#10
Alison Brown: Pierfrancesco de' Medici 1430-1476

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/7 ... 2205854891

... gives details about the life of Pierfrancesco de' Medici, son of Lorenzo the Elder. Generally he was regarded as a son of the family, but his condition as a "rich heir" complicated the family situation. He showed not much interests in the business till a relative old age (about 25), in comparison Lorenzo already took some public function with 14 or 15. He had more money than his cousins, and liked to enjoy his life, not showing interest to participate in "sponsoring actions", which were an essential part of the family business.
Likely he had a long time an open door to enter the "Medici system", but he used it only with hesitation, and finally the interest to have him in dominant position was small.
His father-in-law Agnolo Acciaiuoli (Pierfrancesco married 1456) was a friend of Cosimo and made suggestions, how Pierfrancesco could take a more responsible life. However, finally in 1466 Acciaiuoli became hostile to Piero, and he was banned with the other rebels, after Piero survived the crisis. Pierfrancesco, who somehow participated in the rebellion, was forgiven.
But Pierofrancesco didn't get public commissions till Piero's death (1469). In Lorenzo's time he got some, but he wasn't trusted. Pierofrancesco died 1476. His sons got a lot of money difficulties with Lorenzo.

The article doesn't give much information to Lorenzo the Elder.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron