Anghiari Deck debate


At 2nd of 2012 February Ross Caldwell at AT published: ... t=anghiari
and with that the recent finding of Thierry Depaulis (16 of September, 1440, note of Giusto Giusto) was inside the world of the Tarot forums.
Ross G Caldwell wrote:Thierry Depaulis has found a new reference to Tarot from Florence in 1440, two years earlier than the previously known earliest reference, from Ferrara in 1442.

The source is the diary of the Anghiara notary and public official Giusto Giusti ... ografico)/
which covers the years 1437 to 1482, recently edited for the first time by Nerida Newbigin ... igin.shtml
, professor emerita of Italian Language and Literature at the University of Sydney.
See Nerida Newbigin, ed., "I "Giornali" di ser Giusto Giusti d'Anghiari (1437-1482)" in Letteratura Italiana Antica, III, 2002, pp. 41-246.

An entry for 16 September, 1440, reads (p. 66):

Venerdì a dì 16 settembre donai al magnifico signore messer Gismondo un paio di naibi a trionfi, che io avevo fatto fare a posta a Fiorenza con l’armi sua, belli, che mi costaro ducati quattro e mezzo.

Friday 16 September, I gave to the magnificent lord sir Gismondo, a pack of triumph cards, that I had made expressly in Florence, with his arms, and beautifully done, which cost me four and a half ducats.

"Gismondo" is Sigismondo Malatesta.

Other notable details are the location where the cards were made, Florence; the unique term "naibi a trionfi"; and the price of four and half ducats.

It has been 138 years since Giuseppe Campori published the earliest known reference to Tarot cards - "carte da trionfi" - in the account books of the ruling Este family in Ferrara - and since 1874, research, both accidental and determined, has found many more references to the cards and the game of Triumphs, all of them after this previously earliest documented reference on 10 February, 1442. The picture of the game of Tarot's spread in the 15th and subsequent centuries has been amply filled out - more, perhaps, than for any other 15th century card game - but with this new discovery a little light is beginning to be shed on an earlier time.
I replied to it rather immediately, and I spoke of the close nearness to the Anghiari battle. With that a context was drawn between battle and the new finding.
Looks like a great finding ....

The reporting man was born in Anghiari and at Anghiari took place a battle at June 29, 1440, which is 2 1/2 months before the date of 16th September with the Trionfi cards. ... ghiari.asp


The battle became VERY famous and actually one doesn't know, why.
Fiorentinipontifici: 8000 uomini. Durata: 4 ore. Scontro tra le opposte cavallerie pesanti; quella fiorentina, divisa in tre schiere, affronta a turno gli avversari. Dei viscontei sono fatti prigionieri 22 capisquadra, 400 connestabili, 1440 uomini di taglia e 3000 cavalli; i morti sono 70 (60 milanesi) ed i feriti 880 (400 fra i ducali). Sono pure catturati 1200 contadini (aspiranti saccheggiatori) che seguono le truppe di Niccolò Piccinino. I prigionieri sono rilasciati quasi subito, secondo i costumi del tempo. ... a/1440.htm

Not many were killed. Condottieridiventura knows of "70", other voices (ironically) of "3" (who dropped from their horse and had a fatal accident)
A great number of prisoners, who were robbed and set free.

In 1439 had been the council of Ferrara ... it's said, that there were at least 3 great festivities. The Florentines learned to "celebrate".
The victory of Anghiari a year later might have given another reason for a "great party". Perhaps the Florentines had learned, that one could win with propaganda about a victory more than with the battle itself. This party was so big, that it was still remembered in the time of Leonardo da Vinci (about 70 years later). The battle of Anghiari became a symbol.

When Alfonso of Aragon made his Trionfo in 1443, and a Florentine delegation participated, then the report of this festivity mentioned, that the Florentines had already much experience with triumphal celebrations.

Sigismondo Malatesta didn't take part at the party ... but he changed from Milan side to Florentine side. ... rescia.htm

In March 1440 he fought for Milan against Florence. In August 1440 he was engaged for Florence against Milan ... although he isn't in the region of Florence, but in the Romagna ... In September/October (at 16th of September is the Trionfi card action) condottieridiventura reports:
Occupa Bagnacavallo, Massa Lombarda ed altre terre dell’imolese; non può, o non vuole, impedire a Francesco Piccinino l’ingresso in Forlì. Danneggia molti villaggi e tenta di espugnare il capoluogo. Vista l'inanità dell'impresa, si sposta prima a Forlimpopoli con gli altri condottieri. A metà ottobre, i fiorentini prendono la strada di Capodicolle e della val di Savio: il Malatesta si ferma a San Vittore perché trattenuto dai fiumi in piena. Le milizie fiorentine proseguono per la Toscana; egli deve, invece, fermarsi per qualche giorno, in quanto non può trovare riparo a Cesena, dal momento che il fratello milita al soldo del duca di Milano. Rientra a Rimini.
The situation develops into a pause of war. Filippo Maria Visconti sends his daughter to the court of Ferrara in September/October 1440, where Bianca Maria stays till end of March 1441. Bianca Maria gets 14 painted objects at 1.1.1441, likely Trionfi cards, as a present for the guest from the side of Leonello. The painter is the later Trionfi card painter Sagramoro.

Further we have around this time, that a commission is given for illustrations to a Petrarca-Trionfi-edition from the side of Piero di Medici. This is oldest known note of this picture genre, which then was very often used first in Florence (especially for Cassoni) and later also elsewhere.
The commission went to the artist Matteo de Pasti, who in 1441 had been in Venice. The letter exchange 1441 is given as the first sign of Matteo de Pasti ... who had to leave Florence for unknown reason (he begs for an excuse in the letters). In later times Matteo had some relation to Sigismondo Malatesta. He got the commission to paint the Osmanic sultan in the mid 1440s, but was taken prisoner as a spy. Later he worked mainly as an medalist.
It was also announced here, a day later:

Later Franco Pratesi made a closer research on the new finding. (July 2012)
A month later followed Michael Hurst: ... onado.html

Meanwhile ... "Giusto Giusti" and "Tarot" has its results at ... 80&bih=860


End of August 2012 "Phaeded" entered our talking. He often presents the hypothesis, that the Anghiari battle might have caused the "first Trionfi deck" ...which, according my opinion, is a possibility, but not especially likely. It came - as a possibility - immediately to my mind, when I read of the Giusto document, but I rejected it in favor of a more plausible "1439, during the council".
Well, that' only betting on horses. Experience knows, that even outsider can win. The situation is simply not clear. So I guess, it's good, when Phaeded presents his ideas.

... :-) ... unluckily Phaeded has the habit, to distribute his contributions to the theme at various places ... this is not really practical, neither for him nor for his readers. It's better in the jungle of a Forum some sorting system, so that an opinion and its accompanying material is gathered at one place. So, here is a place. ... :-)

Phaeded said, that his theory involves 14 cards, which naturally also involves earlier studies to the 5x14-theme. So I give a short overview:

In the older 5x14-theory and the later "Chess Tarot" hypothesis following views were presented:

14 Trumps

There are 3 documents, from which one can suspect the existence of "only 14 trumps":

1. The document of 1.1.1441, in which Bianca Maria Visconti got in Ferrara 14 paintings made by Jacopo Sagramoro, who one year later appears as a Trionfi painter.

2. The PMB and its state as "painted by 2 different painters and this not at the same time". One painter painted 14 trumps (and all the cards) and the other 6. Both can be interpreted as 2 different groups. The group of six trumps seems to be formed by Sun-Moon-Star and by 3 "missing" cardinal virtues (missing in the other 14 ards, which knows only a figure of "Justice". The other group seems to present a 5x14-deck (70 cards).

3. Borso's 2-decks-production in July 1457. The document speaks of 70 cards for each deck.

For points 1. and 3. it's completely open, what sort of trumps it might have been, for point 2. all 14 trumps are given. Naturally one can suspect, that 1. and 3. had similarities to 2., but this naturally has only the character of a suspicion.

16 Trumps

In 3 other cases we can speak of 16 trumps:

1. Michelino deck - it clearly has 16 trumps, likely as part of a 60 cards deck. It exists the possibility to see this deck as having a 4x15-structure. A 4x15-structure was already known to John of Rheinfelden.

2. Cary-Yale Tarocchi. The trumps are incomplete, the surviving suits suggest, that it had a 16 cards for each suit (6 courts per suit instead of usual 4 courts). This seems to suggest a 5x16-structure. A reconstruction f the fragments seems to be possible, also it seems to be possible tosee as a "Chess-Tarot" version, in which each figure could be given to the 16 figures of one player.

3. Charles VI deck. It has 16 trumps and one court card. The unusual distribution of surviving cards (16 of possibly 22 trumps, 1 of possibly 56 suit cards are present). Considering this very special condition, then it might be, that somebody bought the trumps (16), but wished to add own 56 other suit cards. He/she added a suit card, perhaps to have a model, how another artist might develop suits, which would fit with the style of the deck.
The 16 trumps have some similarity to the reconstructed Cary-Yale and there are also ideas, how this would fit with the Chess-Tarot hypothesis

(4) Recently we had worked about "Panegyric of Bruzio Visconti by Bartolomeo da Bologna" (c. 1350) ...
... this work presented also 16 figures and it included:

7 virtues + 1 (Theology)

7 artes liberalis + 1 (Philosophy) ...
Philosophy, Grammar, dialectic, Rhetoric, Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy or Astrology.

The style of the representation gives reason to assume, that again Chess had been in the background.

In the "Echecs amoureux" version of Evrart de Cont it's clear, that the background of the work is chess. Conty presents 16 gods (as Filippo Maria Visconti in he Michelino deck, but partly it are other gods). Illuminated versions of the later time had individual pictures of the gods (a the Michelino deck). The first seven gods are the planetary gods, which are by an 8th god (Athena) increased to the number 8 (as in the Bartolomeo da Bologna work). Athena was occasionally used to present philosophy (Mantegna Tarocchi)

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

Details to the battle: ... /2723-1440
... gives as leaders of the Florentine/Papal party
Micheletto Attendolo
Simoncino d’Anghiari
Niccolò da Pisa
Bernardo dei Medici
Pietro Giampaolo Orsini [given by Macchiavelli as Florentine general]
Neri Capponi
Ludovico Scarampo
Paolo della Molara
Simonetto da Castel San Pietro
Troilo da Rossano
Pietro da Bevagna
Baldaccio d’Anghiari
Baldovino da Tolentino
Troilo da Rossano
Francesco Ottoni
Pietro Paolo Torelli
Bernardo Giugni
Renzino della Valle
Bernardo dei Medici, Neri Capponi, Baldaccio d'Anghiari, whih are given elsewhere as great heroes at this opportunity, are ranked lower in the representation.

Micheletto Attendolo (first in the list) in his biographical presentation comes under greater pressure during the battle, but he is helped twice by a. Simonetto da Castel San Pietro and b. Simoncino d’Anghiari (who is given 2nd on the list).
According Macchiavelli the experienced general Micheletto Attendola was the first, who noted the approach of the enemy, and he rushed to give alarm and took position at the bridge. As all others on the Florentine side were slower in their preparations, it's natural, that Micheletto had a hard stand in the beginning.

Actually, my own commentary ... it was a hot day. Piccicino's troops had to cross about 10 km before finding the bridge, which was the crucial point in this fight, a lot of them without horses.
If the Florentine were so stupid, that they needed the dust of the road to recognize, that the enemy was approaching, Piccinino likely had been similar stupid about the position of the opposite army and their preparation of the battle field. When approaching, Piccinino likely only saw a small part of the opposite army, which he considered to overcome with only small losses.

This is a picture from an Anghiari festival in June, called "Palio della vittoria"


It should be the road to Sansepolcro.

Downhill is a church, which looks old: Chiesa di San Stefano

Image ... nghiari%29

Not too far from this church should be a bridge and a river-bed, which is a long side-arm of the young Tevere (in Anghiari perhaps 30 km from its fountain)

During the battle it seems to have been difficult to cross the river otherwise than by the bridge. So the bridge had been the crucial point in the battle.

Machiavelli's description is here: ... ri&f=false

Macchiavelli's famous note about a man, who did fall from his horse ......
This victory was
much more advantageous to the Florentines than injurious to the duke;
for, had they been conquered, Tuscany would have been his own; but he,
by his defeat, only lost the horses and accoutrements of his army,
which could be replaced without any very serious expense. Nor was
there ever an instance of wars being carried on in an enemy's country
with less injury to the assailants than at this; for in so great a
defeat, and in a battle which continued four hours, only one man died,
and he, not from wounds inflicted by hostile weapons, or any honorable
means, but, having fallen from his horse, was trampled to death
Combatants then engaged with little danger; being nearly all mounted,
covered with armor, and preserved from death whenever they chose to
surrender, there was no necessity for risking their lives; while
fighting, their armor defended them, and when they could resist no
longer, they yielded and were safe.
Well, point 1: "Tuscany would be his" ... this seems very exaggerated. Piccinino had just proven short time before, that it took one month to take a single castle.
And point 2, about the man and his horse ... the battle report of condottieridiventura has ...
Fiorentini e pontifici: 8000 uomini. Durata: 4 ore. Scontro tra le opposte cavallerie pesanti; quella fiorentina, divisa in tre schiere, affronta a turno gli avversari. Dei viscontei sono fatti prigionieri 22 capisquadra, 400 connestabili, 1440 uomini di taglia e 3000 cavalli; fra gli uccisi si contano 60 uomini d'arme e 80 cavalli leggeri; i feriti sono 880 . Sono pure catturati 1200 contadini che seguono le truppe di Niccolò Piccinino come ausiliari. Tra i collegati sono uccisi 40 uomini d'arme ed altri 200 restano feriti. I prigionieri sono rilasciati quasi subito, secondo i costumi del tempo.
Tra gli uccisi si devono calcolare anche una sessantina di donne, addette al trasporto dell'acqua,che sono state travolte dalla carica della cavalleria pesante.

My not very competent understanding of Italian language finds here a much larger number of killed and wounded persons.

Perhaps Macchiavelli in his attempt to find arguments for the change of Florentine military concepts mixed the result of Anghiari with that of the battle CASTEL BOLOGNESE/RIO SANGUINARIO in August 1434, in which the Florentine hero Niccolo da Tolentino (honored in great manner by Andrea dal Castagno with a fresco beside that of John Hawkwood in 1456) lost as the leader of a Chiesa/Venetia army against Niccolo Piccinino, who fought for Milan. The result:
Viscontei: 6000 cavalli, 3000 fanti. Veneziani/pontifici: 6000 cavalli, 3000 fanti. Imboscata in cui cadono le truppe venetopontificie in seguito all’arretramento dell’avanguardia viscontea. La via della ritirata è preclusa da una colonna di cavalli che in precedenza ha occupato la strada. I viscontei catturano 3500 cavalli e 1000 fanti. I morti sono 4, i feriti 30. Niccolò da Tolentino è fatto uccidere dal duca di Milano Filippo Maria Visconti.
9000 against 9000, 4 were dead, and wounded were 30, 4500 became prisoners. This indeed can be considered a little bit shameful.

Macchiavelli had then later opportunity to test the value of his theories in practice. He was lucky with Pisa (1509), and then there was the year 1512, which ended his career as a military leader.


Some biography about Bernardo de' Medici starts at page 15 ... 22&f=false
"Andrea Del Castagno And His Patrons" , by John Richard Spencer (1991).

Bernardo (Bernadetto, Bernardino) de' Medici is of some importance for the following festivities after the battle, which play a big role for our very specific question, if the battle of Anghiari might have caused the "first deck, which was called Trionfi deck".

At page 19 a short letter of Bernardo and Neri Capponi is given, written direct after the battle and likely the first report, which reached Florence. Both are very eager to underline their personal contribution to the success (and forget about all others) and consequently demand the honors for themselves (which is rather surprising if one reads the report of Macchiavelli), in which they are not noted, and instead as Florentine general Giampaolo Orsini is given. Actually it looks like an attempt to forge the true story.
Some honor actions are noted, in which Bernardo seems to get more than Neri Capponi. It are not so big festivities, at least as far it is presented in this text (my opinion, Phaeded might it see different).

Phaded prepared the following interesting information:
Phaeded wrote:Primary sources for Anghiari:
…dispatches written from Anghiari to the Signoria on the day of the battle and several days following it. Having probably remained in the possession of the Signoria, they would have been available to and were certainly the major sources for fifteenth-century savants such as Flavio Biondo da Forli [1392-1463, apostolic secretary to Pope Eugene IV], Leonardo Dati [1408-1472; wrote Trophaeum Anglorium which described the battle of Anghiari], and Benedetto Dei [1418-1492, in the service of the Medici who wrote a chronicle], all of whom dwelt on and richly embellished the story of Anghiari” (“Leonardo's Battle of Anghiari: Proposals for Some Sources and a Reflection,” Barbara Hochstetler Meyer, The Art Bulletin, Vol. 66, No. 3 (Sep., 1984), pp. 367-382: 369).
Machiavelli at least made use of Flavio Biondo (see S. Anglo, Machiavelli, A Dissection, 1969: 159f). Directions to da Vinci on what to paint for his famously lost Anghiari painting that are in the Atlanticus Codex are in a different hand other than Leonardo’s (thus the presumption these were provided to him from the archives, thus also available to Machiavelli).

As for the dispatches from the battlefield, they are translated and published in Spencer, Andrea Del Castagno: And His Patrons , 1991: 18-19. Spencer adds:
The citizens of Florence recognized the importance of the victory as well. The dome of the cathedral and the campanile were illuminated as they were for the feast day of Saint John the Baptist. Litta reports that upon their return to Florence the commissioners were honored with a pennon, a caparisoned horse, a shield with the arms of Florence, and a helmet. Strangely enough, Bernardo [Bernardetto] took precedence over Neri even though Neri weas older and had been senior on earlier missions….He was also named first in the act narrating the events that led up to the condemnation of Rinaldo degli Albizzi and his allies [Spencer, Appendix 4, p. 141]. Clearly, freidnship counted for much in the case of Neri but kinship wioth Bernardo was even more importamnt. (19)
Anghiari was clearly turned into a Medici celebration (years later even da Vinci’s painting features Bernardetto’s capture of the flag at Anghiari), Capponi demoted in importance and his own military connection killed by Cosimo in the following year (Baldaccio) and the Anghiari victory itself categorically a trionfo, despite the lack of a clear account of a street procession. At all events, Anghiari was celebrated with triumphal pomp/trappings in the form of the cassoni that have come down to us, the illumination of civic structures after the battle, the impiccati on the Bargello (which was on the Via del Proconsolo triumphal route that leads to the rear of the duomo) and the awards heaped upon the commissioners charged with overseeing the military operations that lead to the victory.

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

More info on Dati's work, Trophaeum Anglaricum(c. 1443):
The author, Leonardo Dati (1401-77), was a young Florentine humanist badly in need of a job; he dedicated the poem to the cardinal, who is of course given all the credit for the victory over Niccolo Piccinnino. Lodovico’s initial caution is praised as much as his impetuosity on the day of the battle, which was on the feasts of St. Peter and St. Paul. According to the poem, on the previous night he had a visiioon of St. Peter, who told him: “Tomorrow you must fight, and I shall assit you.” Cardinal Lodovico is compared to the greatest captains of antiquity, from Alexander the Great to Hannibal, for encouraging his officers, haranguing the troops, rushing always to the most dangerous spoots on the battlefield. (D.S. Chambers, Popes, Cardinals and War: The Military Church in Renaissance and Early Modern Europe, 2006: 50).
As utilized by da Vinci:

Translation [Latin to Italian] of passages from treatise Trophaeum Anglaricum by Leonardo di Piero Dati, used for composition of Battle of Anghiari from Atlantic Codex (Codex Atlanticus) by Leonardo da Vinci, folio 202 recto
Image ID: DGA 435402

Credit: Translation of passages from treatise Trophaeum Anglaricum by Leonardo di Piero Dati, used for composition of Battle of Anghiari from Atlantic Codex (Codex Atlanticus) by Leonardo da Vinci, folio 202 recto, Vinci, Leonardo da (1452-1519) / Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Milan, Italy / De Agostini Picture Library / Metis e Mida Informatica / Veneranda Biblioteca Ambrosiana / The Bridgeman Art Library
DGA 435402Image number:
Translation of passages from treatise Trophaeum Anglaricum by Leonardo di Piero Dati, used for composition of Battle of Anghiari from Atlantic Codex (Codex Atlanticus) by Leonardo da Vinci, folio 202 rectoTitle:
Vinci, Leonardo da (1452-1519)Primary creator:
Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Milan, ItalyLocation:
De Agostini Picture Library Metis e Mida Informatica / Veneranda Biblioteca AmbrosianaCredit:
The Codex Atlanticus is the largest collection of Leonardo da Vincis papers. Originally gathered together by the sculptor Pompeo Leoni, it is bound in twelve volumes. Its name refers to its large size, being comparable to an atlas.Description:
16th (C16th)Date:

Re: Anghiari Deck debate: Giusti

Of course the most important witness to the events surrounding Angier is the notary Giusti Giusto whom commissioned the triumph deck for Malatesta.

His journal reference does not shine a definitive light on the origins of tarot, but we can certainly move past the notion that he was just a notary who for some reason commissioned the deck in Florence. In fact he was a middleman who helped facilitate the employment for smaller units of armed men for the larger armies run by the more famous condottieri of the day. He was particularly close to the Taglieschi, Agnolo being a participant in the battle of Angier, per this article:“di ... malatesta/

The article’s primary point of inquiry is the close approximation of the Taglia coat of arms with those of Malatesta (the latter being specifically named as on the earliest referenced tarot deck). However it is also clear that Giusti was the go between for Agnolo Taglia and Malatesta, procuring work for the former from the latter. In fact he had earlier provided 66 “horses” [lances?] to Micheletto Attendolo, then 200 horses in 1437, renewing 1438 with 302 horses and a year later to 312 with Florence (so 1439 – right . Moreover Giusti also notes in his journal that on the December 16, 1438 he obtained green cloth from the Pucci for the uniforms of Agnolo (N. Newbigin, “I Giornali di Ser Giusto Giusti d'Anghiari (1437- 1482)” in “Letteratura Italiana Antica”, anno III- 2002: 56). The Pucci were of course closely aligned with the Medici and one of Giusti’s specific contacts, Antonio di Puccio Pucci, having a connection to the Angier region via the office of the castellan of Casseretto ad Arezzo. After the Battle of Angier, Agnolo goes to work for Malatesta providing 300 horsepower and 400 foot soldiers while also moving his residence to Rimini. Malatesta was not present at Angier but was considered part of the “Holy League” at the time and a papal military vicar.

So when Giusti has the tarot deck embellished with Malatesta arms as a gift, was it really on behalf of the Taglieschi from whom he would receive a commission? The Taglieschi apparently adopted a variant of Malatesta’s arms themselves. More importantly, a question I have speculated upon repeatedly was the production of tarot previous to Angier or created as part of the Angier triumphal celebrations? I see three possibilities here in regard to Giusti’s deck:
1. Trionfi was created prior to Angier in a non-combatant context; the embellishing of triumph with a military commander’s coat of arms was pioneered by Giusti.
2. Trionfi was created prior to Angier for a combatant (which battle? For whom?), with Giusti
following that precedent.
3. Trionfi was created for Angier, with Giusti simply ordered a deck in Florence (perhaps through the likes of the Pucci with whom he was already doing business) where they were being made.

The lack of other evidence for alternate origins for tarot, the condottieri connection of the earliest surviving decks, the CY and PMB, and the earliest archival references (Giusti’s journal and the notice of decks made in Ferrara in 1442, a court known for providing condottiero leadership) point to a military background for trionfi – something whose name explicitly refers to military victory. I find it most likely that Giusti was following the practices of his Medici patrons (they quickly promoted his interests after Anghiari, appointing him envoy to Siena in 1442) with the latter having commissioned the creation of tarot for a condottiero: Sforza (whom Anselmo Calderoni, acting as Florentine herald, lauded as the savior of the day even though he was not present at Anghiari, he was the most powerful ally in the “Holy Alliance”).

PS Some images of the Palazzo Taglieschi in Anghiari I took in April (no photos allowed inside, so this is it):
Italy 2013 643.JPG
Talieschi stemma
(376.2 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Italy 2013 646.JPG
Palazzo Taglieschi
(372.63 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Italy 2013 645.JPG
historical marker for the Palazzo Taglieschi
(386.87 KiB) Not downloaded yet

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

Some photos of Anghiari:
Italy 2013 617.JPG
Looking south at Anghiari
(459.48 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Italy 2013 625.JPG
Battle of Anghiari diorama, looking from the disputed bridge back at the town
(240.16 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Italy 2013 659.JPG
similar view as the diorama, looking back at town from field of battle
(235.85 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Not sure how accurate this is that Florentine families had their arms displayed at the battle, but another photo of the diorama in the civic museum showing the the Albizzi coat of arms on a flag (the concentric circles on a black background) next to the quartered viper/imperial eagle of the Visconti:
Italy 2013 631.JPG
Albizzi and Visconti standards at Anghiari
(311.12 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Today's combatants:
Italy 2013 651.JPG
(470.55 KiB) Not downloaded yet

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

Sorry, I hadn't much time these days.

Giusto was the son of a trader of weapons and armor. Till 1437 he wasn't so much in Anghiari, it seems, that he was married in Bibbiena, about 40km distance. Then the wife died and the son returned "home" and married again, and likely participated indirect in the ways of his father by getting commissions from the local condottieri.

Then the closer relations to the two Condottieri brothers started. I'm not sure, that he was in Anghiari during the battle (actually it sounds, as if he had been in Florence and went to Anghiari 1st of June, also I'm not sure for the brothers. Gregori became prisoner in April, but was already released. There was a special mission against Anfrosina, who lived near Anghiari ...
Spesso la sua partecipazione agli eventi militari si spinse ben oltre la semplice presenza come "cancelliere del soldo". Il 28 maggio 1440, con alcuni degli uomini della compagnia di Agnolo Taglia, il G. cavalcava verso Montagutello e i territori di madonna Anfrosina da Montedoglio, vedova di Carlo Tarlati da Pietramala e alleata dei Milanesi contro Firenze, facendo razzia di bestiame.

... well, this May 28 is a month before Anghiari.

A 1st of July he met the brothers at Chiaveretto in about 10 km distance to Anghiari, with their company.

Condottieridiventura has for Agnolo and June 1440:
Contrasta le milizie di Niccolò Piccinino. Ottiene a patti Bibbiena; occupa con Niccolò da Pisa anche Rassina e Poppi.
... and that Agnolo commanded in March 302 cavalli.
Not a word about Anghiari and the battle, also it isn't noted the otherwise well known Anfrosina story.

Giusto's version about these days:


There's a festivity, cause the news comes, that Sforza had a big victory at Soncino. The festivities about the Anghiari victory take not much more words.

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

Huck wrote,
Giusto's version about these days… There's a festivity, cause the news comes, that Sforza had a big victory at Soncino. The festivities about the Anghiari victory take not much more words.
To a degree I suppose we all see what we want to see, but come on – Giusti uses the exact same freaking phrase for both victories:
June 18, Soncino…gran festa
June 30, Anghiari…gran festa (but even adds a grandissima vittoria).

But do you really think Florence would celebrate a battle they did not participate in more than one they did? Rhetorical question.


Re: Anghiari Deck debate

Transfered from discussion ...
viewtopic.php?f=11&p=15340&sid=5f2cada6 ... 42e#p15340
Phaeded wrote:My careless mistake on "connecting Savoy by way of Isabelle" - I meant Maria of Savoy (and the theory that the CY connects to her by way of the red/shite flag - see my other post on the Agnese thread).
I don't know, that the Medici were involved, that's your hypothesis.
Not my hypothesis - it is a fact. Read not just the over-analyzed Anghiari excerpt from his diary but the entire diary (I had to go to Notre Dame's library to do this, or at least the preceding and following year's entries) to understand Giusti's connection to the Medici. A digest version of those facts is in his bio on Treccani: ... ografico)/ Some of the "machine" translation, with my attempted corrections of the bastardized English:
"...notary of Anghiari (1437), where he was chancellor of the vicar of Pagolo, the Florentine Giovanni Morelli." Cosimo was in control in 1434 and any administrator and their staff of the Florentine contado was a de facto Medici partisan. But more to the point: "For the young notary Giusti, these [positions] would be the basis for an intense and eventful life, spending life as a procurer of military men, and as a familiar and confidant of the Medici family [e come familiare e uomo di fiducia della famiglia Medici] - and lords such as Sigismondo Malatesta - ....".
But our major question, as far I remember, was, if the first Trionfi deck appeared after Anghiari or before, around the council 1439. Or have you changed your opinion?
I haven't changed my opinion - the Medici created tarot to celebrate the military victory of Anghiari (of the utmost signficance because it overcame the ultimate foreign [Visconti] and internal [Albizzi] enemies that they had), with the loyal Giusti following suit in having a customized deck made for Malatesta (present with Cosimo at the Duomo consecration in 1436) for whom he was doing business as a procurer of soliders.

In other words - you have nothing concrete where you could point to before the relevant date. Sure, Giusto had a long life and with security some relation to the Medici. But the relation before September 1440 would be interesting.

That Malatesta met Cosimo 1436 shouldn't be so interesting, if Giusto wasn't there. It was natural, that Cosimo had some contact to condottieri of some importance.
As far I know, Giusto worked then on minor business far away from Florence on the country in minor function.

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

This are - as far the register tells it - the earliest references to one of the Medici family (Cosimo) in the records of Giusto Giusti ...

July-August 1441



March 1442


... so after 16 September 1440. Another follows in April 1442 (not mentioned in the register, which is possibly not complete).


Naturally Giusto - if he carried the diaries with him at his journeys - might have feared, that somebody else might have spied it. So he would have been careful about that, what he wrote. For instance, if he had secret commissions from the Medici, he might have been advised not to write about his relation to them.

In his text he addresses Malatesta often in a respectful manner. When he writes about Cosimo, he simply writes "Cosimo". In the case, that Malatesta took caution to read in his diary, he would have felt satisfied and honoured, having even a higher rank than Cosimo.

So there are possibly reasons, which explain the missing talk about the Medici. But one hardly can call such hypotheses "facts".

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

I don't think we can expect too much directly between Cosimo and a provincial notary, Giusti, before the latter assumed a higher profile; the Medici have rightfully been described as a political party that had many supporters. You've previously already pointed out one of these in connection with Giusti:
we find [Giusti] in Anghiari as the cancelliere of Giovanni Pagolo di Morelli (this seems to be the same, who with a short note about naibi and children wrote playing card history in his "Ricordi"). The literary activity of Morelli might have inspired the younger Giusto Giusto, cause in this year 1437 (precisely April 1437, a few days before he married for the second time in May) he started to record his diaries.
Morelli was from the Medici "homeland" of the Mugello and was most definitely a partisan of Cosimo's. As you note above he is in Anghiari before the battle there in 1437 when Giusti begins his own diary; Giusti himself could have hardly been neutral in a batlle in his backyard and indeed plays an active blocking role of a mountain pass during Piccinino's retreat after the battle. Both Giusti and Morelli quickly ascend within the hierarchy of the "party" after the victory at Anghiari - Morelli becoming Florence's standard-bearer of Justice the very next year, in 1441; Giusti a slew of contado posts.

Giusti's link to Cosimo (or his brother Lorenzo) need not have been direct to establish whose side Giusti was on before 1440. And given the direct link to such a highly placed official within the Medici party, Morelli, I still think my hypothesis that it was the Medici who pioneered the tarot to celebrate Anghiari makes perfect sense, with the provincial minion (Giusti) aping that effort (you've already suggested Giusti copied Morelli's practicce of writing a ricordi).


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests