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

#11
Huck,
One more humanist of the early Medici literati circle I should have mentioned as he was important to Lorenzo vecchio as his tutor (likely Cosimo’s as well) – the future chancellor Carlo Marusppini (I still lean towards Bruni as the one behind the original tarot program, the humanist chancellor at the time of Anghiari).

I know that I read two different accounts of the Albizzi/Martelli scuffle in 1434 after the Medici return but can’t find them at the moment (or least don’t have the time for a thorough search at the moment); will post them for you once I locate them in the ever-growing pile of copied articles I have.

Re. the event for which Cosimo held the Pope’s horse’s reins:
; Huck wrote: Before the council [Pope Eugene] entered end of January 1439 (if you mean this), that's hardly the date of the Giovanni procession, I would think.
You’re right - that was the event:
Cosimo’s costly yet successful efforts to have the Council of Ferrara transferred to Florence in 1439 ar well known, and when Pope Eugenius arrived in Florence for the occasion, it was Cosimo, elected Standard Bearer of Justice, who marched beside him and held the bridle of the papal horse [fn: Cavalcanti, Delle Carcere, 244]. Richard Trexler, Public life in Renaissance Florence, 1980: 424.
Precisely what we have in the Gozzoli painting; its if the Cosimo event is “quoted”, yet his action is performed by another (Martelli) as he is now in the train of dignitaries.

Backing away from these details for a moment, let’s consider the competing theories of the ur-deck: Created as a species of trionfi for the Medici victory at Anghiari [my theory] or the earlier “victory” of the Medici of getting the “successful” Council moved to Florence (your theory; Ross’s too?).

Let’s agree with Crum and others that Gozzoli did in fact paint an idealization of the Council of Florence in the Medici Palace chapel fresco of the procession of the Magi; moreover, let us also admit that the first person to receive a tarot deck that we know about, Malatesta, is in that very painting. From there complications ensue. Nothing in Gozzoli’s painting explicitly speaks, iconographically, to one of the trumps; most damning: None of the three kings look like the emperor card that was produced in the CY, Brambilla and PMB. If a church-related event, versus a battle, was the original focus of the tarot then one must explain the incongruent fact that the Church, quite recently in the person of Bernardino (d. 1444), condemned cards, objects virtually synonymous with gambling. So the great East-West Union was celebrated with an iniquity?

The only facts we have about the earliest known Giusti/Malatesta deck is that it quickly followed upon the Medici victory of Anghiari, was paid for by a procurer of armed men (Giusti) and was bequeathed to a purchaser of the services of such armed men (Malaesta) in his primary occupation of a condottiero. Moreover, the only thing we know about the deck proper is that it displayed Malatesta’s coat of arms – an overtly political symbol in the 15th century. None of this jives with the ur-deck having a primarily moral purpose nor having been Church-centric.

My own theory is that the deck celebrated the joint Papal/Florence victory at Anghiari, but that the recipients of the ur-tarot decks were not the clergy for the reasons I touched on above; the “target audience” for the cheaper decks would have been the popolo and especially mercenary solidery that had vexed all Italian states since Hawkwood and before. The earliest tarot decks – Anghiari, CY and PMB (Brambilla is too fragmentary) – are all associated with condottieri, not the Pope or “the Church.” But even the Church, in the person of its legate who lead the papal army that day at Anghiari, bishop Ludovico Trevisan, celebrated Anghiari as a triumph (where was the Council depicted as such by either the Medici or Church?):
Image

Phaeded

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

#12
Phaeded wrote:Huck,
One more humanist of the early Medici literati circle I should have mentioned as he was important to Lorenzo vecchio as his tutor (likely Cosimo’s as well) – the future chancellor Carlo Marusppini (I still lean towards Bruni as the one behind the original tarot program, the humanist chancellor at the time of Anghiari).
Bruno had an oratio, when the pope or the emperor (likely the emperor ?) entered, likely cause he was well with Greece language. As Giannozzo Maetti, whom I take of greater importance in our question.
Manetti was about 25 years younger as Bruni, 44 in 1440. Would you assume, that a use of a young medium was suggested by an older or a younger person? I would say, that a younger would have been closer to the younger generation. If it really came from the intellectual circle ... actually Manetti proved later in Pistoia, that he was against gambling ... but Trionfi cards likely aimed at educative aspects first, so this is not a contradiction. Manetti saw himself as follower of Bruni, so he might well taken a program which was similar to Bruni's ideas.

Marsuppini ... another man from the Arezzo context. I don't know, why you take him of importance, but freely spoken, I don't know very much about this cycle of persons.

....
Backing away from these details for a moment, let’s consider the competing theories of the ur-deck: Created as a species of trionfi for the Medici victory at Anghiari [my theory] or the earlier “victory” of the Medici of getting the “successful” Council moved to Florence (your theory; Ross’s too?).
Only mine, as far I now ... but I don't talk about the fictive "Ur-Tarot". I talk about the first use of the name "Trionfi" for a deck, disregarding the content-question. I can imagine, that this "first" Trionfi deck had similarities in its motifs to the later very popular Tarocchi version, but I see also the possibility, that it might have been very different. For the structure of the deck, I see stronger indications for 5x14 or chess-structure (16-trumps).
Let’s agree with Crum and others that Gozzoli did in fact paint an idealization of the Council of Florence in the Medici Palace chapel fresco of the procession of the Magi; moreover, let us also admit that the first person to receive a tarot deck that we know about, Malatesta, is in that very painting. From there complications ensue. Nothing in Gozzoli’s painting explicitly speaks, iconographically, to one of the trumps; most damning: None of the three kings look like the emperor card that was produced in the CY, Brambilla and PMB. If a church-related event, versus a battle, was the original focus of the tarot then one must explain the incongruent fact that the Church, quite recently in the person of Bernardino (d. 1444), condemned cards, objects virtually synonymous with gambling. So the great East-West Union was celebrated with an iniquity?
Well, the hole in this consideration is, that "Trionfi decks" were meant "educative". With such an idea pope Eugen and the Franciscans could (possibly) live with.
And we have the situation, that nobody claimed to be the designer. Nobody takes responsibility for the decks.

Franco Pratesi had earlier (1990) worked about prohibitions in and around Florence:
http://trionfi.com/card-playing-laws-florence
In spite of all these prohibitions, we had a lot of playing card producers in Florence. This society had two faces, one was tolerant, but another was prohibitive.
As late as 1450 we have an official allowance of the Trionfi game (whatever this might have been at this time). Siena followed rather quick (1451).
So we have a period of about 10 years, when they could debate, if this should be an allowed game or not. But .. likely the debate wasn't closed in 1450. I think, that in 1455, when the tolerant-modern pope Nicolaus V. died, the following conservative Spanish pope gave signals, that there was too much card playing, again.

Generally, at festivities, especially the period between Christmas and 6th of January (3 wise men's day), the card playing prohibitions traditionally took a pause. It was cold, it was dark outside, as usual, and not much else to do.

I think, that nobody claimed to be the designer cause this latent prohibitive tendency for gaming and gambling activities.
A really deep anonymous action would be the style of Leon Battista Alberti, who once (1424) wrote the theater play "Philodoxus", and claimed he had found an old manuscript.

But: Had been the style of the early Trionfi deck really so unusual at its time? Isn't the style of the Michelino deck a few degree "more unusual" and the Michelino deck is clearly older ? We have very few examples of 15th century decks, but between them there is a big part, which might be called "unusual". Should we assume, that Italian deck production till 1440 had no other ideas as "standard deck" and "Tarocchi" and "Michelino deck" and "nothing" else? In view of the many variations in surviving German deck forms we must assume, that especially in the "free-hand-painted" phase a lot of curious ideas should have found to some reality.

We had in Florence (January - June 1439) a half year full of activities, a period, when the weather turns from bad to very good (May till June had been a traditionally festivity season, the weather was not too hot then). The result of the technical church talking were presented in a manner, that it was a great success (what it definitely not was, as recognized later). The current battlefields took more or less a pause. A lot of by-way amusements had space to take place. Gonella was painted ...

Image


... and Plethon had time to tell wild stories. The Greek had a lot of books to discover. Visitors from outside took time to visit , brought money, made a business here and there, well, all this was exciting.

When Alfonso in Naples celebrated his 1442 victory in 1443 with a trionfo, there was also a large delegation from Florence. In the eyes of a reporting spectator the Florentine had a superior knowledge by experience, how to organize such spectacles. So the question ... where and when had they gained this "superior experience"? Notes about "triumphal festivities" before 1439 are generally rare.
The events of 1439 were big in dimension, they had space and time. The battle of Anghiari had importance, no doubt, but the war activities proceeded, it was not immediately peace everywhere. The time between victory and presentation of the gift of a 4.5 ducats Trionfi deck was 2 1/2 months, which would have been enough if there would have been designers in Florence, who had made similar things before. If such a commission was totally new, 2 1/2 months look rather short, especially as there is some distance between Anghiari and Florence.

Borso in 1454 started his project of a small Trionfi mass production with a contract at begin of February and he had 11 high quality Trionfi decks around end of April, about the same length in time, but Trionfi cards were NOT a new product then and Borso hadn't distance problems.

The only facts we have about the earliest known Giusti/Malatesta deck is that it quickly followed upon the Medici victory of Anghiari, was paid for by a procurer of armed men (Giusti) and was bequeathed to a purchaser of the services of such armed men (Malaesta) in his primary occupation of a condottiero. Moreover, the only thing we know about the deck proper is that it displayed Malatesta’s coat of arms – an overtly political symbol in the 15th century. None of this jives with the ur-deck having a primarily moral purpose nor having been Church-centric.

My own theory is that the deck celebrated the joint Papal/Florence victory at Anghiari, but that the recipients of the ur-tarot decks were not the clergy for the reasons I touched on above; the “target audience” for the cheaper decks would have been the popolo and especially mercenary solidery that had vexed all Italian states since Hawkwood and before. The earliest tarot decks – Anghiari, CY and PMB (Brambilla is too fragmentary) – are all associated with condottieri, not the Pope or “the Church.” But even the Church, in the person of its legate who lead the papal army that day at Anghiari, bishop Ludovico Trevisan, celebrated Anghiari as a triumph (where was the Council depicted as such by either the Medici or Church?):
Image

Phaeded
Trevisan interestingly became cardinal immediately after Anghiari (3 days later). At the same day Pietro Barbo, nephew to Pope Eugen, and later Pope Paul II, was made cardinal (only these two were made cardinal at this day).
Trevisan ... was famous for his fortune, luxury and splendor." He became also "Camerlengo", which is not surprising, as he started as papal physician.
http://www2.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios1440.htm#Trevisano
... same link for Barbo

It's an interesting aspect, that Barbo's call for the cardinalate happened at this lucky day, as if he had made something of importance in the matter. Did he? I don't get something

Trevisan seems to be the replacement cardinal for Vitelleschi, who was killed in spring 1440. Trevisan came from "humble origin" and was then "famous for his fortune, luxury and splendor" and somewhere I saw mentioned "more a condottiero than a cardinal". He seems to have earned money through his occupation.

************
New cardinals by Eugen :
http://www2.fiu.edu/~mirandas/consistories-xv.htm
September 19, 1431 (I)
(1) 1. Francesco Condulmer, nephew of His Holiness, protonotary apostolic. + October 30, 1453.
(2) 2. Angelotto Fosco, bishop of Cava. + September 12, 1444.

August 9, 1437 (II)
(3) 1. Giovanni Vitelleschi, titular patriarch of Alexandria and archbishop of Florence. + April 2, 1440.

AFTER THE MAJOR PART OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
December 18, 1439 (III)
(4) 1. Regnault de Chartres, archbishop of Reims, France. + April 4, 1444.
(5) 2. Giovanni Berardi, archbishop of Tarento. + January 21, 1449.
(6) 3. John Kempe, archbishop of York, England. + March 22, 1454.
(7) 4. Niccolò d'Acciapaccio, archbishop of Capua. + April 3, 1447.
(8) 5. Louis de Luxembourg, archbishop of Rouen, France, and administrator of Ely, England. + September 18, 1443.
(9) 6. Giorgio Fieschi, archbishop of Genoa. + October 8, 1461.
(10) 7. Isidore of Kiev, archbishop of Kiev of the Ruthenians. + Apil 27, 1462.
(11) 8. Bessarion, archbishop of Nicæa of the Greeks. + November 18, 1472.
(12) 9. Gerardo Landriani Capitani, bishop of Como. + October 9, 1445.
(13) 10. Zbigniew z Oleśnicy, bishop of Kraków, Poland. + April 1, 1455. (1)
(14) 11. António Martins de Chaves, bishop of Porto, Portugal. + July 6, 1447.
(15) 12. Peter von Schaumberg, bishop of Augsburg, Germany. + April 12, 1469.
(16) 13. Jean Le Jeune, bishop of Terouanne, France. + September 9, 1451.
(17) 14. Dénes Szécsi, bishop of Eger, Hungary. + February 1, 1465.
(18) 15. Guillaume d'Estouteville, bishop elect of Angers, France. + January 22, 1483.
(19) 16. Juan de Torquemada, O.P., master of the Sacred Palace.
(20) 17. Alberto Alberti, bishop elect of Camerino. + August 11, 1445.

July 1, 1440 (IV)
(21) 1. Ludovico Trevisano, patriarch of Aquileia. + March 22, 1465.
(22) 2. Pietro Barbo, nephew of His Holiness, protonotary apostolic (1).


(1) Elected Pope Paul II on August 30, 1464. Died on July 26, 1471.

May 2, 1444 (V)
(23) 1. Alfonso de Borja, bishop of Valencia, Spain (1).

(1) Elected Pope Callistus III on April 8, 1455. Died on August 6, 1458.

December 16, 1446 (VI)
(24) 1. Enrico Rampini, archbishop of Milan. + July 4, 1450.
(25) 2. Tommaso Parentucelli, bishop of Bologna. (1)
(26) 3. Juan de Carvajal, bishop elect of Plasencia, Spain. + December 6, 1469.
(27) 4. Giovanni de Primis, O.S.B.Cas., abbot of the monastery of S. Paolo fuori le Mura, Rome. + January 21, 1449.

After Eugen made totally 17 cardinals in 1439, anti-Pope Felix in 1440 created at 3 different dates 18 cardinals.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

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

#13
I question Manetti’s devotion to the cause at that point in time - in the year following Anghiari he was incensed by Cosimo’s assassination of Baldaccio (François Perrens, The History of Florence Under the Domination of the Medici , Volume 1, 1892: 54). Nevertheless, it’s very possible the form of the first tarot emanated from a humanist circle (and I would include the likes of Palmieri here) so that “all of the above” would not be an incorrect answer (and that would also allow the anonymity you touched on), but consider two things:
1. Not only was Bruni the chancellor in 1440 (and earlier of course, to cover the Council year of 1439), but was the only humanist member of the Dieci di Balia, the war Council of Ten during Anghiari; the ten members were: Neri Capponi (co-commissioner of the army along with Bernardetto de Medici – both celebrated as heroes of Anghiari after the battle; both were knighted and “wreathed in triumphal gifts” - Cavalcanti, Seconda Storia, c.16, ii, 158 - from both the Signoria and the parte guelfa), Lorenzo Ridolfi, Leonardo Bruni, Antonio di Silvestro Seristori, Angelo di Jacapo Acciaiuoli, Filippo Carducci, Cosimo de Medici, Alessandro Alessandri, Niccolo Borromei and a locksmith represting the minor guilds. “All were major figures in Florence; all were members of the Medici regime” (John Spencer, Andrea Del Castagno: And His Patrons, 1991: 18).
2. The only work of art we know of commissioned for Anghiari, the Impiccati, was painted by a “client”, Castagno, of the same Bernardetto de Medici. The same war balia was in place when the commission to paint the Impiccati was awarded after the battle; the herald of the Signoria composed the verses in which each exiled man admitted his guilt. Castagno would go on to paint both a portrait of Bruni (1445) and three Virtues (1447; the theologicals?) for the guild of the Giudici e Notai in (Spencer: 1991: 9, 12).

All of this indicates a tight control over what we might call public relations by Cosimo and the Medici Party at this critical juncture. I think you know my views that the CY deck, reconstructed as a hypothetical canonical 7 virtues with seven exemplars/antiypes (together forming a 14 trump ur-deck), following close in time to Anghiari and thus did not change trump subjects. Bruni had written extensively about the Virtues, Knighthood, eulogized condottierei associated with Florence (Nanni Strozzi and Tolentino on the anniversary of the Battle of San Romano; Spenser: 27), and would end his Commentaries with Anghiari, thus pointing out his own historical role on that occasion. He was a natural to be on point for the communal celebration of Anghiari. And to reiterate – the seven virtues were everywhere in Florence and re-evaluated in regard to their role in the active life (vs the Petrarch platform of contemplative); to quote myself from a post in an earlier thread: “Of the numerous monumental representations of the Virtues in Florence one finds the Cardinal and Theological virtues everywhere there: on the Campanile, on the Loggia dei Lanza, on the Baptistry doors (albeit with Humility for symmetry’s sake on the rectangular doors), the three theological virtues inside the Baptistery on the tomb of Antipope John XIII by none other than Donatello, the cardinal virtues above the tomb of Cardinal of Portugal in S. Miniato by della Robbia, all 7 on the spalliere above the magistrates seats in the Mercanzia by the Pollaiuolo brothers and Botticelli, on the wall of the Spanish chapel of the Aquinas fresco, Redeemer and the Seven Virtues on the ceiling of Santa Felicita, etc. ….These works of art are paralleled by Florence's writers such as Bruni and Palmieri who also reveal a keen interest in the 7 Virtues precisely in the time before 1440; e.g., Palmieri's Della vita civile ("On Civic Life"), composed in 1429 and circulated between 1435-1440 - Book 2 discusses fortitude, prudence and temperance while Book 3 is dedicated to justice.” viewtopic.php?f=12&t=919

If an unplanned for event like a victory in battle caused the trionfi to come into being then something readily available and meaningful would have been pressed into service.

Re. Anghiari vs the Council for the first tarot
Huck wrote:
… I don't talk about the fictive "Ur-Tarot". I talk about the first use of the name "Trionfi" for a deck, disregarding the content-question. I can imagine, that this "first" Trionfi deck had similarities in its motifs to the later very popular Tarocchi version, but I see also the possibility, that it might have been very different. For the structure of the deck, I see stronger indications for 5x14 or chess-structure (16-trumps)… .Should we assume, that Italian deck production till 1440 had no other ideas as "standard deck" and "Tarocchi" and "Michelino deck" and "nothing" else?.
Again, I agree with the 5X14 only to be replaced/expanded in 1450 with the PMB model of 22 trumps. Giusti’s Anghiari deck of 9/1440, the 14 images painted for Bianca in Ferrara on 1/1441, the 10/1441 CY (if for Biana/Sforza wedding) all happen in rapid succession, so I don’t think anyone can make a solid claim for too much trump diversity here, regardless of how many trumps one thinks there were – there just wasn’t enough intervening time.
Huck wrote:
It's an interesting aspect, that Barbo's call for the cardinalate happened at this lucky day, as if he had made something of importance in the matter. Did he? I don't get something
I think its as simple as spoils to the victors – although not present at Anghiari, Venice was part of the Holy Alliance of Pope/Florence/Venice allied against Visconti in 1440; if one of the Venetian bishops was elevated by Eugene, still living in Florence of course, it was as an easy reward (to a fellow countryman no less).

Finally, my objection to the use of tarot to celebrate an ecclesiastical event, to which you wrote:
Well, the hole in this consideration is, that "Trionfi decks" were meant "educative". With such an idea pope Eugen and the Franciscans could (possibly) live with
The Church would not sign off on something whose primary use was gambling, no matter how educational; “…owing to the influence of St. Antoninus, archbishop of Florence, and St. Bernardino of Siena, when there was a rash of decrees against gambling and arrests for gambling in Florence….” (William J.. Connell, Constable, Giles, Sacrilege and redemption in Renaissance Florence: the case of Antonio Rinaldeschi, 2005: 38). The Church passing out playing cards would be like passing out “abstain from alcohol” pamplets glued to full wine bottles.

More importantly, most hand-painted decks have coats of arms (CVI is a notable exception although even there a fleur-di-lys appears on he emperor’s sceptre and possible Medici palle on the chariot’s pennant-skirting) and in the case of this civic-sponsored Council event how would the city’s white/red fleur di lys, the Medici’s palle and papal crossed-keys not be there? Without these signs of the participants, who accomplished the Union, what would be the point of the cards as a means of celebrating the Council? But with those actor’s coats of arms they are all implicated in passing out a means for gambling in the face of the staunch, anti-gambling local archbishop.

Phaeded

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

#14
Phaeded wrote:I question Manetti’s devotion to the cause at that point in time - in the year following Anghiari he was incensed by Cosimo’s assassination of Baldaccio (François Perrens, The History of Florence Under the Domination of the Medici , Volume 1, 1892: 54).
"This preview don't offer page 53/54"
.. if you mean this
http://books.google.de/books?id=KJMOAAA ... ti&f=false

"Baldaccio fu ucciso il 6 settembre 1441[4] a Palazzo Vecchio da uomini al soldo del gonfaloniere di giustizia Bartolomeo Orlandini."
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldaccio_d%27Anghiari

Sorry, this is not the time discussed. How shall it play a specific role for September 1440? As far I remember, Manetti himself played a special role to reconcile Eugen with the death of Baldaccio.
As far I remember, Manetti got special merits for keeping the price for grain under control (which was high cause Piccinino), at least in a special region. Also he was mentioned as having a specific position from the side of Piccicino. Piccinino's army had robbed some horses of Manetti ... Manetti wrote a letter and got it back (it seems he had a diplomatic state ?).
Both should have been relevant in 1440.
But I think of 1439, the situation during the council.

.....
All of this indicates a tight control over what we might call public relations by Cosimo and the Medici Party at this critical juncture. I think you know my views that the CY deck, reconstructed as a hypothetical canonical 7 virtues with seven exemplars/antiypes (together forming a 14 trump ur-deck) ...
No, not really, as you missed the opportunities to open a thread like "My hypothesis to a Trionfi deck made after the Anghiari battle". ... :-) ... instead you attempt to fill other threads as for instance "the 3-fold Lorenzo", although I actually intended to write here also about such distant things like about Lorenzo, duke of Urbino, and his favor for Germini, with the resulting situation, that I don't really know, what you suggest.

Here would be a place:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=950

Perhaps you should collect your various arguments there. Then it has a place, and one knows, where to look, if one wishes to understand you and the specific aspect.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

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

#15
Huck,
I think most of what I wrote is germane to your subject of Lorenzo and the creation of trionfi. I mention Lorenzo's tutor, Marsuppini, whom you dismiss out of hand for no apparent reason, and then propose Manetti without explaining the connection to Lorenzo other than he was yet one more humanist in the Medici circle that also had a papal connection (so did Bruni; in fact in the second half of 1438 his translation of Aristotle's Politics was published with a dedication to Eugenius IV).

Your broader subject of "game inventors" brings into play Anghiari vs. Council as the more likely event for spurring the creation of trionfi. Most relevant here would be contemporary Florentines referring to the Council as a trionfo; without that, your metaphor of "triumph" mapped onto the Council is just that. Anghiari was a triumph pure and simple and called as such.

And you have still not adequately addressed the fundamental problem of Florence's Archbishop Antoninus and St. Bernardino both actively and successfully preaching against gambling at the time of the Council. Its just unlikely in the extreme that a religious event would employ an object being publicly castigated by the preachers. A deck's educational value does not equally offset what it was most associated with by all members of society: gambling. My theory is more plausible in that the expensive hand-painted decks went to condottieri (a fact) while cheap decks (none of which survived in the mid-15th c., so a theory here) were produced for their soldiery, who doubtless had plenty of camp time to play cards and would have not been bothered by municipal regulations against their use.

Phaeded

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

#16
BTW: Here is how Eugenius celebrated the Council - via the bronze doors by Filarete on St. Peter's:
http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Interior ... larete.htm

Despite being done by a Florentine I don't see a hint of triumphal imagery that we find in the earliest trumps, but rather an overt papal focus on the imperial personnages as inferior to that of the pope. How a recent study describes some of the key panels:
The strip on the right depicts the pope and the emperor attending the Council of Florence in 1439. The left strip between the middle and the lower panels depicts Pope Eugenius crowning Emperor Sigismund in Rome in 1433, followed by their ride through the city. The right strip shows the Jacobites (Syrians) accepting the agreement of unification with the Western Church and departing from Rome in 1443.”
+
[Re. temporal power depicted on left door by Filarete on St. Peters]: “They show the emperors John VIII Palaeologus and Sigismund both kneeling for Pope Eugenius and between them Saint Paul, whose traditional attribute of a sword is prominently put on view, evoking associations with ‘the sword of the spirit’ (Ephesians 6:17). On the right door, scenes showing the unification of the church under Pope Eugenius IV as its supreme leader illustrate the spiritual power of the papacy. The central panel, with St. Peter handing the keys to Eugenius, underscores the pope’s unlimited authority. Together, the doors bear out the papal claims of plentitude of power in both temporal and spiritual matters. (Jan L. de Jong, The Power and the Glorification: Papal Pretensions and the Art of Propaganda in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries; 2013: 11-12).
Phaeded

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

#17
... hm ... :-) ... in your own interest you should follow my suggestion and collect your material to the Anghiari battle theory in an own thread.

I got this to Marsuppini
Messer Carlo, who succeeded Bruni in the Chancery of the Republic, shared during his lifetime, as well as in the public honours paid him at his death, very similar fortunes. His family name was Marsuppini, and he was born of a good family in Arezzo. Having come to Florence while a youth to study Greek, he fell under the notice of Niccolo de' Niccoli, who introduced him to the Medicean family, and procured him an engagement at a high salary from the Uffiziali dello Studio. At the time when he began to lecture, Eugenius was holding his Court at Florence. The cardinals and nephews of the Pope, attended by foreign ambassadors, and followed by the apostolic secretaries, mingled with burghers of Florence and students from a distance round the desk of the young scholar. Carlo's reading was known to be extensive, and his memory was celebrated as prodigious. Yet on the occasion of this first lecture he far surpassed all that was expected of him. 'Before a crowd of learned men,' says Vespasiano, 'he gave a great proof of his memory, for neither Greeks nor Romans had an author from whom he did not quote.'[162] Filelfo, who was also lecturing in Florence at the time, had the mortification of seeing the larger portion of his audience transfer themselves to Marsuppini. This wound to his vanity he never forgave. Through the influence of Lorenzo de' Medici (Cosimo's younger brother), Carlo Marsuppini was first made Apostolic Secretary, and then promoted to the Chancery of Florence. He was grave in manner, taciturn in speech, and much given to melancholy. His contemporaries regarded him as a man of no religion, and he was said to have died without confession or communion.[163]
http://www.freefictionbooks.org/books/r ... s?start=76

Marsuppini was 4 years younger than Lorenzo, the terminus "tutor of Lorenzo" is a little bit misleading. Sure, he gave lectures ...

Giannozzo Manetti

I spoke of Manetti, cause Manetti wrote a Petrarca biography in c. 1440. In contrast to the Anghiari theory I see the increasing fashion around the Trionfi poem of Petrarca as the deciding fact, why specific playing card decks got the name "Trionfi" (beside the council, likely parallel to it).

Further we have, that Manetti focused on the "three crowns of literature" Petrarca, Boccaccio and Dante in this biography.
Franco Pratesi has detected the terminus "Corone" (= crowns) as used for an exotic deck of relative high value (similar price as for Triionfi decks) in 1447. For Siena territory he detected the same ame in 1445, then used as a game name. It's not clear, if this has anything to do with the "3 crowns" of Manetti and Bruni before, but it's just suspicious.
In 1448 Andrea del Castagno got the commission to decorate the Carducci villa with 9 figures, 3 Sybils, 3 Florentine condottieri and the "3 crowns" Petrarca, Boccaccio and Dante. This program of 9 figures in a system of 3x3 had been used before for the 9 Worthies with 3 Pagan rulers of the past, 3 Jewish rulers and 3 Christian rulers, since began of 14th century (1312).
The 9 Worthies got an influence on French playing cards, in which the court card kings especially were taken from the 9 Worthies composition. It's not clear, when this French habit started, but it was suspected, that this happened very early. From the used playing card figures "Lahire" (= Étienne de Vignolles) ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hire

... became a constant factor for the Jack of Hearts. Lahire had died in 1443 and he was the "youngest" of the used figures. Perhaps it's a plausible idea, that the system with the court card persons in France also started in the 1440s, short after 1443, when Lahire still was popular as a knight.
For France we have, that Renee d'Anjou started to build a knight order (1448/49) and already earlier (after he lost Naples) he showed an interest in the celebration of knight tournaments. The "knight order game" had political relevance, a few years later (1453) England was able to finish the 100-years-war against England. So this was a good time for Lahire to become the Jack of Hearts.
In addition to some poetry, three works can be attributed to René of Anjou: the Mortiffiement de Vaine Plaisance, a religious allegory (1455); the Livre du Cuer d'Amours Espris, a romantic allegory (1457); and the Forme et Devis d'un Tournoy, an entirely practical treatise on how to hold a tournament (1460). All three works were written during a period when René was a central figure at the court of his brother-in- law, King Charles VII. During the occasional pauses in two decades of fighting with the English, he organized several of the most famous and extravagent tournaments of the mid-fifteenth century. Among them were a tourney at Nancy in 1445, on the occasion of the marriage of his two daughters Marguerite and Yolande; the Emprise de la Gueule du Dragon at Razilly in 1446; the Emprise de la Joyous Garde, at Saumur, also in 1446; and the Pas de la Bergère, in 1449, at Tarascon. Already known as a writer and a patron, René may have been inspired by the publication of Antoine de la Sale's treatise on the tournament in 1458 to write a treatise of his own, "a little treatise ... on the form and way in which I think a tourney ought to be undertaken at court or elsewhere in the marches of France .
http://www.princeton.edu/~ezb/rene/renenote.html

Back to Manetti: Manetti had his own crusade, and this went against "Gambling in Pistoia"(1446/1447). Bisticci reported his engagement. In Bisticci's eyes Pistoia was a "gambler's nest". Manetti got a well-paid public function (gouvernor) in Pistoia, limited in time. Then he made - beside other things, he also wrote a "history of Pistoia" - his anti-gambling actions ..

http://books.google.de/books?id=seDbXV9 ... ia&f=false

... somebody wished, that his position should be prolonged, but this raised the envy of others and a series of mockery about Manetti started. Unluckily the precise situation seems to be not clear. But Manetti's star (he became poetus laureatus for a funeral oration for Bruni) turned from raising to falling with this activity, and finally in 1453 Manetti went into exile.
The role of his anti-gambling activities in the raising critique on Manetti is not clear. I think, that persons with prohibition culture get their opposition elsewhere, that's part of common life. These forms of silent ways of reaction don't find their way in history books.

The only way to compare playing card production in Florence is offered by the silk dealer articles and the Puri family records 1447-1449 (Franco Pratesi).
http://trionfi.com/es16
http://trionfi.com/es43
http://trionfi.com/es12

The reports to Manetti in Pistoia gave reason to suspect, that this period was possibly part of a greater prohibition period for card playing. This naturally could have been mirrored by playing card production numbers. Indeed the records of the silk dealers show for the critical period a low production.

For the Puri family trade with playing cards we have, that we have no records for September 1447, but then high sales in 1447, the business still running in 1448 (not so good) and very bad in 1449 (this part of the business is closed). The Puri family activity looks like a good opportunity trade, which used the luck of a specific situation, which should have occurred before September 1447. If a form of card playing prohibition would have been taken back to normal state, then for a short time playing card would sell rather well. The records possibly mirror such a situation.
Before 1444: Pope Eugen had a good relation to the Franciscans and promoted them. The Franciscan preached against playing cards and gambling and playing. The most famous preacher was San Bernardino.

1444: San Bernardino died. Intensive measurements were taken to make San Bernardino a saint very quickly. Occasional card playing prohibitions might have been a part of this project.

Around 1445: Pope Eugen is considered to have reached a most successful state. This seems to be mirrored by successes against the "feasts of the Fool" (mostly 1st of January), specific festivities of the lower clergy with blasphemous acts like "card playing at the altar", use of much alcohol, etc.. These customs were far spread, though with regional differences and with different intensity. Prohibitions of this form of activities were already discussed at the early council in Basel (early 1430s). In 1445 a prohibition was given for Paris in France, in which the custom had been especially strong developed. (The "feast of Fools" became a topic in the movie of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"). In the following years after 1445 the fight went on.

1447: Pope Eugen died at 25th of February. The new pope Nicholas was quickly chosen at 5th of March. Pope Nicholas is considered as far more modern and tolerant as Eugen.
In Milan died Filippo Maria Visconti (August 13), the arch-enemy of Florence. The situation turned very quickly into a rebellion and the foundation of the Ambrosian republic.
The news about death and rebellion naturally needed some time to reach Florence and naturally also a administrative reaction would have need some time.
The Puri family records started at 7th of September 1447, but gained full success in October. So this comparison of Florence playing card production, Manetti-information and the more general influences looks promising.

The silk dealer lists are more complex. The list of the sales has not much data and has a general focus on the years 1439-40, so it is of not much value here. The long lists of the acquire article are far better. In the years 1445-1448 only decks of 3 producers are bought by the silk dealers, from Antonio di Dino (5 Soldi), Antonio di Simone (9 Soldi) and Nicolo di Calvello (cheap decks). Each of them delivers a special category of decks.

Image


There's some indication, that a painter addressed as mainly "Antonio" (mainly at the sales lists) is identical to Antonio di Dino, so Antonio di Dino would have been in business relation with the silk dealers between 1438-1453 as the most continual cooperator. Antonio di Simone appeared in 1442 and sold totally 16 worthwhile decks in 6 different deals (he was likely the son of Simone di Ser Antonio Fazi, who delivered in 1437 four worthwhile decks for 20 soldi each). After 1442 there was a pause of 4 years, and Antonio di Simone reappears in 1447 and becomes then a constant supplier till 1455. From Antonio di Dino's production line (that, what we know about it) one can't conclude, that there was a "prohibition factor 1446-47", which influenced the business relation. Similar one can't say this about Antonio di Simone in a clear manner, though the long pause between 1442 and 1447 might be an indicator. Interesting alone are the values of Nicolo di Calvello.

In his long career with the silk dealers (1442-1456) he delivered about 3500 decks, and this phase had two larger pauses between August 1443 - February 1445 (18 months) and between October 1445 and May 1447 (19 months). At the end of the second period (in the important year 1447) he delivered 72 decks in May, and then 96 decks in the last 3rd of the year (which was so very successful for the Puri family).

Image


Naturally these numbers might have well developed by personal reasons of the participants, and NOT by a negative outside condition (like a general negative mood against card playing would be). But in context of Manetti's anti-gambling action in Pistoia and the observable feature of the Puri family records it seems remarkable. The prohibition tendency - if there was one - might have been directed especially against "cheap decks", as they were made by Nicolo Calvello.
It has some internal logic, if the prohibitions were felt as necessary for decks, which the humble workers could pay, and not necessary for decks , which - anyway - were too expensive for them.

So far to Manetti. Manetti participates at least a little bit at general playing card history, something, which can't be said for Bruni or Marsuppini (as far I know). Also he participates in active manner at "Petrarca's increasing fame", and that's perhaps the deciding cause for the invention of the Terminus "Trionfi" for specific playing cards.

**********
And you have still not adequately addressed the fundamental problem of Florence's Archbishop Antoninus and St. Bernardino both actively and successfully preaching against gambling at the time of the Council.
Well, please address it, I don't claim, that Antonius and St. Bernardino were actively preaching against playing cards at the council. What's your source?
I know, that Antonius made some actions against card playing (Bisticci said so). I don't know, that this happened during the council. Antonius wasn't archbishop of Florence in 1439, he became it in 1446 (well, the year, which is suspected to have known increased prohibition). Bisticci notes Stephen day in this context. That's a Christmas day ... not during the first half year of the council. Bisticci noted, that he did it often.
But it seems plausible, that he did it as archbishop (so in 1446 or after it) and in a time, when he had some background and general solidarity for these actions.

Thanks for link ...
http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Interior ... larete.htm

That's a nice information, somehow underlining, that 1445 was a very successful year for pope Eugen.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

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

#18
Huck wrote:...
Phaeded wrote: And you have still not adequately addressed the fundamental problem of Florence's Archbishop Antoninus and St. Bernardino both actively and successfully preaching against gambling at the time of the Council.
Well, please address it, I don't claim, that Antonius and St. Bernardino were actively preaching against playing cards at the council. What's your source?
I provided it in my May 20th post (it was lengthy so you probably missed it), but I didnt say at the Council itself, just Florence:
The Church would not sign off on something whose primary use was gambling, no matter how educational; “…owing to the influence of St. Antoninus, archbishop of Florence, and St. Bernardino of Siena, when there was a rash of decrees against gambling and arrests for gambling in Florence….” (William J.. Connell, Constable, Giles, Sacrilege and redemption in Renaissance Florence: the case of Antonio Rinaldeschi, 2005: 38).
Granted the timeline of both preacher's specific activities against gambling needs to be nailed down but Bernardino was dead by 1444 so his activity likely preceded the Council. Pratesi's own work shows a keen interest in regulating cardplaying in Florence and in the surrounding towns, specifically against playing cards near churches...actually promoting cards - for the Church - is almost unthinbable without some scrap of evidence that contemporaries referred to the Council as trionfo and celebrated it in some way that suggest the trumps' subjects (Instead, for instance, I see the Byzantine emperor who looks nothing like the tarot emperor).

I'll address your other points later.

Phaeded

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

#19
(William J.. Connell, Constable, Giles, Sacrilege and redemption in Renaissance Florence: the case of Antonio Rinaldeschi, 2005: 38)

I got it, http://books.google.de/books?id=3cYraL2 ... no&f=false

They back it up with Footnote 13:

Image


The "n. 3 above" means footnote 3.

Image

Image


Perhaps Ross has something to say to the sources ???????

Generally I think that San Bernardino's preaching against playing cards was finished around 1426, when some started to accuse him and Bernardino went into a defensive state. He got a papal excuse a few years later, but then he was installed to higher functions and had other responsibilities. Generally there was the aim to use San Bernardino and his popularity, but in a less provocative version.

I'm not sure, but I doubt, that there were extreme special actions against playing card use during the council. They likely avoided "local scandals" during the first half year, I would assume. The interest was to unite the church of Each and West (if not for "real", then at least for the "official success" ... it was very important to silence the council in Basel by "harmonious messages" from Florence). They needed Fame and a big Trionfo to demonstrate the victory of Eugen, the victory of the council of Florence and the victory with the help of Florence business.

Similar strategies are pursued by modern public events: "No scandal, please. Let it look good."
Huck
http://trionfi.com

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

#20
I'm on The Medieval Review's listserve - thought you would be interested in this one on Manetti (as you can see sometimes their reviews can be rather late):

From: The Medieval Review <tmrl@indiana.edu>
Sent: Thu, June 6, 2013 11:49:11 AM
Subject: TMR 13.06.09 Manetti, Historia Pistoriensis (Caferro)

Manetti, Gianozzo. <i>Historia Pistoriensis</i>. Ed. Stefano U.
Baldassari and Benedetta Aldi. Florence: SISMEL Edizioni del Galluzzo,
2011. Pp. xv, 265. $95.00. ISBN: 978-88-8450-442-5.

Reviewed by William Caferro
Vanderbilt University
william.p.caferro@vanderbilt.edu


Only recently has Gianozzo Manetti (1396-1459) begun to receive the
scholarly attention he deserves. Study of the Florentine politician
and humanist, known best as author of <i>De dignitate et excellentia
hominis</i>, has been hampered by a lack of critical editions of his
work. The publication of <i>Historia Pistoriensis</i> represents an
effort to remedy the situation and is thus very welcome. It is a
skillful and erudite edition that will finally replace L. A.
Muratori's outdated version, published in the eighteenth century. The
modern editors offer insightful introductory essays and ample notes to
the text that allow scholars to place the <i>Historia</i> more surely
in its intellectual and political context.

The critical edition of the <i>Historia</i> is the work of three
scholars. Stefano Baldassari is most responsible for editing the Latin
text and provides introductory essays and discussions of major themes
and literary conventions. Benedetta Aldi traces the manuscript
tradition and assembled the index. William Connell gives a brief
historical comment alongside the presentation of archival documents
relating to the composition of the <i>Historia</i> and its reception.
The collaboration is very effective, and the reader gains a strong
sense of the circumstances under which Manetti wrote the history, the
sources of the work and its subsequent influence.

The exact date of the composition of the <i>Historia</i> is unknown.
Baldassari speculates that it derived from Manetti's service for
Florence as <i>capitano di custodia</i> of Pistoia from October 1446
to March 1447 and was most likely composed at that time or shortly
thereafter. Like Manetti's other works, the <i>Historia</i> was
written quickly and contains redundancies and errors with respect to
facts. Baldassari suggests that Manetti may have been motivated to
write in part by a desire for reappointment to his post, which was
essentially a sinecure. Manetti borrowed books from the Biblioteca
Capitolare in Pistoia, including earlier histories of Pistoia and
Giovanni Villani's chronicle, to use as sources for his work (the
archival evidence for which is provided in the appendix by William
Connell). Manetti relied heavily on Villani for the first part of the
<i>Historia</i> and on Leonardo Bruni's <i>Historiae Florentini
populi</i> for the more contemporary parts.

Manetti's view of Pistoiese history is broad and respectful. He traces
the development of the city from its Etruscan origins, through its
submission to Florence, until his own day. Manetti's Latin style is
flowery and filled with literary devices. Baldassari carefully notes
Manetti's use of alliteration and frequent recourse to classical
formulae ("mirabile dictu"). Like previous works on Pistoia, the
<i>Historia</i> stresses the local penchant for factional violence. In
the humanist tradition, Manetti draws a great deal from classical
authors, such as Cicero, Livy and Sallust. Baldassari emphasizes,
however, that Manetti situates his <i>Historia</i> very much in terms
of Leonardo Bruni's contemporary <i>Historiae Florentini populi</i>.
The dialogue with Bruni is particularly evident in the discussion of
the origins of the Pistoia. Manetti traces the founding of the city to
the followers of Catiline, thus linking Pistoia to the Roman republic.
This formulation is distinct from Bruni, who did not allow Pistoia
such priority, reserving it (famously) for Florence, the only child of
the republic. Manetti's revision of Bruni was, however, carefully
done. Manetti allowed greater dignity to Pistoia, the city he served,
but at the same time did not trample Florence's priority, which he
readily acknowledged. The example, as Baldassari points out, allows a
glimpse of Gianozzo Manetti the politician and a point of intersection
in his career between the realities of public service, patronage and
writing of humanist history.

It is important to stress the great care with which the editors have
rendered Manetti's <i>Historia</i>. The text contains wonderfully
detailed footnotes that allow the reader to trace Manetti's borrowings
from other authors, both classical and contemporary. One sees clearly
the many passages taken directly from Giovanni Villani and Leonardo
Bruni. One also sees clearly Manetti's steadfast attention to military
deeds, his penchant for lengthy digressions, inclusion of divine
portents and attention to acts of faith. The last connects Manetti of
the <i>Historia</i> to Manetti the devout Christian, author of a
defense of Christianity and translator of the bible.

The editors also deserve credit for supplying a comprehensive
bibliography of modern scholarship on Manetti, as well as a carefully
composed index of names, places and authors. The current edition fits
nicely with the recent publication (by Baldassari) of several other
works by Manetti, including his parallel lives of Seneca and Socrates
(inspired by Plutarch) and his biography of Dante, Petrarch and
Boccaccio. Collectively, the works shed much needed light on the
career of an important and curiously underappreciated Renaissance
figure.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron