Re: Casa del Petrarca

#31
Huck,
More info from King on Marcello:
The Fortebraccio was indeed Carlo, who wrote a consolatory dialgue (Dialogus consolatorius) - one of many authors who similar onr the death of Marcello's son Valerio: "He will display to Marcello his 'triumphs,' the author exclaims, in order to lessen his sorrows....the maerial is drawn, as the author himself acknowledges, from a letter Guarino Veronese wrote to Marcello in 1458...." (51).

As for Marcello/Monselice: "...Monselice was purchasedby unnamed members of tghe Marcello family: certainly by 1441, when the first of Jacopo Antonio's sojourn is noted there." (61).

The detailed chronology in King's appendix 2 (easily 1/5th of her book - worth purchasing it for this alone as a detailed reference for this time period) states that for "1441: 6 July. "Senate letter to Jacopo Antonio Marcello, 'our citizen in Monselice,' expressing confidence in his loyaty, instructs him to go with up to ten horses immediately to Vicenza, at the Senate's expense and only for a few days, to accompany Sforza and proceed as far as the Adige to assess the situation." (254). Sforza was merely the means to Venice's terrafirma plans against the Visconti and of course they eventually moved onto Colleoni after Sforza's final defection (or rather self-annointment as the new duke of Milan). For more details on Sforza's involvement with Venice I highly recommend The Likeness of Venice: A Life of Doge Francesco Foscari by Dennis Romano (2007).

Speaking of timelines...
Huck wrote: Well, there are a few things between 1418 - 1440:

1418: new pope in Milan, likely new books in Italy and other general influences from the council of Constance.
1423: Jubilee year ... which should mean traffic and tourism and festivities.
1423: Triumphal festivity by Alfonso and Jeanne of Naples. Two weeks later the both have war with each other.
1424: Philodoxus of Alberti, theater play in Bologna. Twice are mentioned "triumphal processions".
1425: Trionfi of Filippo Maria Visconti in Milan
1431-33: Emperor Sigismondo in Italy
1433: Masquerade with Greek gods in Ferrara, possibly in relation to a wedding between a Parisina daughter and young Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta.
(Generally the period 1425-1440 must be regarded as a time of war, which with only short pauses didn't allow too much festivities.)
1438: Council in Ferrara
1439: Council in Florence
Huck, everything in your timeline pales in comparison to what the triumph at Anghiari meant for the rulers (not in name, but in reality) of Florence, the Medici. Again, both the age-old nemesis of the city, the Visconti, were defeated as well as the Albizzi faction; this cemented Cosimo’s rule. I will add the concession that the church played an active role in the battle via Cardinal Trevisan and thus they would have been included in the triumphal productions (and why in my opinion the theological virtues would have been included in the Anghiari deck and that the later wedding deck for Sforza/Bianca of 1441 – just a year later – simply retained them).

The assumption that many on this board have made that trionfi somehow “naturally” evolved out of the common card playing milieu is completely unfounded. Commoners were not the authors of triumphs in any sense and the earliest known decks are associated with condottieri (Malatesta and Sforza); both of these facts point to signoria using trionfi cards as an additional/propagandistic means to commemorate condotte with their generals. And without any earlier references to trionfi we have to seriously consider that the Anghiari deck was the first trionfi deck ever produced. The Medici curried favour with the commoners (much more so than the Albizzi faction) and thus would have used popular cards as a means to disseminate their triumphal imagery that way (perhaps with less expensive decks and with their own arms). I would also posit that Francesco Sforza, although not at Anghiari, was the overall leader of the Florentine/Venetian campaign against the Visconti in 1440 and would have most likely received the original trionfi deck, commissioned by the Medici themselves. Then the notary from Anghiari followed suit in commissioning a similar deck for a lesser condottiere associated with the campaign – with that general’s arms (Malatesta) – as a means of currying favour for his military kinsfolk who ended up working for Malatesta.

Phaeded

Re: Casa del Petrarca

#32
Phaeded wrote:Huck,
More info from King on Marcello:
The Fortebraccio was indeed Carlo, who wrote a consolatory dialgue (Dialogus consolatorius) - one of many authors who similar onr the death of Marcello's son Valerio: "He will display to Marcello his 'triumphs,' the author exclaims, in order to lessen his sorrows....the maerial is drawn, as the author himself acknowledges, from a letter Guarino Veronese wrote to Marcello in 1458...." (51).
hm ... so I get, that Fortebraccio's contribution wasn't from 1458, cause Valerio wasn't dead then.

I've here Guarino letters.
http://archive.org/search.php?query=cre ... 74-1460%22
Is it possible to identify the specific Guarino letter?

As for Marcello/Monselice: "...Monselice was purchased by unnamed members of tghe Marcello family: certainly by 1441, when the first of Jacopo Antonio's sojourn is noted there." (61).

The detailed chronology in King's appendix 2 (easily 1/5th of her book - worth purchasing it for this alone as a detailed reference for this time period) states that for "1441: 6 July. "Senate letter to Jacopo Antonio Marcello, 'our citizen in Monselice,' expressing confidence in his loyaty, instructs him to go with up to ten horses immediately to Vicenza, at the Senate's expense and only for a few days, to accompany Sforza and proceed as far as the Adige to assess the situation." (254). Sforza was merely the means to Venice's terrafirma plans against the Visconti and of course they eventually moved onto Colleoni after Sforza's final defection (or rather self-annointment as the new duke of Milan). For more details on Sforza's involvement with Venice I highly recommend The Likeness of Venice: A Life of Doge Francesco Foscari by Dennis Romano (2007).
So 1441 is not the date, when they got Monselice, but the date, when it's ssure, that the Marcello owned the castle (or at least one building in Monselice, which justifies the "Jacopo Antonio Marcello, 'our citizen in Monselice'" note).
Speaking of timelines...
Huck wrote: Well, there are a few things between 1418 - 1440:

1418: new pope in Milan, likely new books in Italy and other general influences from the council of Constance.
1423: Jubilee year ... which should mean traffic and tourism and festivities.
1423: Triumphal festivity by Alfonso and Jeanne of Naples. Two weeks later the both have war with each other.
1424: Philodoxus of Alberti, theater play in Bologna. Twice are mentioned "triumphal processions".
1425: Trionfi of Filippo Maria Visconti in Milan
1431-33: Emperor Sigismondo in Italy
1433: Masquerade with Greek gods in Ferrara, possibly in relation to a wedding between a Parisina daughter and young Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta.
(Generally the period 1425-1440 must be regarded as a time of war, which with only short pauses didn't allow too much festivities.)
1438: Council in Ferrara
1439: Council in Florence
Huck, everything in your timeline pales in comparison to what the triumph at Anghiari meant for the rulers (not in name, but in reality) of Florence, the Medici. Again, both the age-old nemesis of the city, the Visconti, were defeated as well as the Albizzi faction; this cemented Cosimo’s rule. I will add the concession that the church played an active role in the battle via Cardinal Trevisan and thus they would have been included in the triumphal productions (and why in my opinion the theological virtues would have been included in the Anghiari deck and that the later wedding deck for Sforza/Bianca of 1441 – just a year later – simply retained them).
Well, I think the situation of the Giusto Giusti document possibly indicates, that it was a deck related to the victory of battle of Anghiari. I myself brought this context up, immediately, after the document became known
http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=171059.
Nonetheless we don't know, what kind of deck this might have been (if the indication really would lead to facts, momentary it's just a possibility). Actually I would suspect, that deck, which celebrated a military victory, would look a little different.
... :-) ... the most remarkable condition of this battle seems to have been, that it was a hot day, and the foot soldiers of Piccinino were exhausted by a longer march.
The participation of the Albizzi seems to be a minor detail (Piccinino worked mainly for Filippo Maria Visconti). On what report to do you base the importance of the Albizzi in this event?
The assumption that many on this board have made that trionfi somehow “naturally” evolved out of the common card playing milieu is completely unfounded. Commoners were not the authors of triumphs in any sense and the earliest known decks are associated with condottieri (Malatesta and Sforza); both of these facts point to signoria using trionfi cards as an additional/propagandistic means to commemorate condotte with their generals. And without any earlier references to trionfi we have to seriously consider that the Anghiari deck was the first trionfi deck ever produced. The Medici curried favour with the commoners (much more so than the Albizzi faction) and thus would have used popular cards as a means to disseminate their triumphal imagery that way (perhaps with less expensive decks and with their own arms). I would also posit that Francesco Sforza, although not at Anghiari, was the overall leader of the Florentine/Venetian campaign against the Visconti in 1440 and would have most likely received the original trionfi deck, commissioned by the Medici themselves. Then the notary from Anghiari followed suit in commissioning a similar deck for a lesser condottiere associated with the campaign – with that general’s arms (Malatesta) – as a means of currying favour for his military kinsfolk who ended up working for Malatesta.
Phaeded[/quote]

We gather possibilities, how the origin of the Trionfi cards might have had happened. It's one of them.
... Let's see, what Michael J Hurst will say to this version ... :-)
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Casa del Petrarca

#33
Huck wrote:
The participation of the Albizzi seems to be a minor detail (Piccinino worked mainly for Filippo Maria Visconti). On what report to do you base the importance of the Albizzi in this event?
The only commissioned art we know about in connection with the Anghiari triumphal celebrations (although the Brunelleschi's Dome was lit up) was Andrea del Castagno's painting of the exiled traitors on the facade of the Palazzo del Podestà, after which he was known by the nickname of Andrea degli Impiccati. Castagno's patron was a distant cousin of Cosimo Medici, Bernadetto de' Medici, who served the Florentine army in the same capacity that Marcello did for the Venetians as a providitore. Bernadetto personally recruited Castagno from the Mugello, the Medici "homeland"; i.e., this was clearly a Medici celebration, not just a civic victory. Castagno was not commissioned to paint Piccinino or Visconti but rather Rinaldo Albizzi and 9 of his exiled relations/followers. You need to read Andrea del Castagno and His Patrons (John R. Spencer, Duke: 1991) especially the appendix in which the painted titles under each "hanged man" painted by Castagno are reprinted (#1 is R. Albizzi). [Google books has at least one relevant page available - 17 - on the relationship between Bernadetto and Castagno; you can also buy the book for ~$6 used on Amazon]

Since the paintings of the hanged men represent a series in and of itself, I find it unlikley that the hanged man was represented in the Anghiari trionfo itself (the parade, and therefore, not in the original cards), that presumably passed by the Palazzo del Podesta'.

Re: Casa del Petrarca

#34
Back on p. 1 Lorredan wrote
In 1437 Niccolo Niccoli's will was carried out and his manuscripts/books(library) went to The Center of Art,Music and Illumination that was the Monastery of Santa Maria degli Angeli in Florence. The General of that Monastery at that time was Saint Ambrose Traversari also known as Ambrose of Camaldoli, also a friend of Luigi Marsigli.
Niccolo Niccoli was the favourite student of (of The Academy of Humanists) who was an Augustine and a friend and correspondant of the elderly Petrarch. He wrote commentaries on Petrarchs work and made public to the Humanists the letters between them. Niccolo Niccoli wrote them out in his famous script.
Luigi Marsigli was also connected to Francesco I da Carrara who gave the Estate of Arqua to Petrarch and to whom Petrarch gave his Library to (the Lords of Padua- the Carrara) Not all his works ended in Venice- I believe some somehow ended up in Milan due to the Carrara imprisonment/death at the hands of a Visconti. I cannot find formal written confirmation of that point.
Matteo de'Pasti was a miniaturist, sculpture and medalist who was associated with the Monastery Santa Maria degli Angeli when he wrote to Cosimo De Medici about the elephants for the Truimph of Fame in 1441. The reason he would have written to Cosimo De Medici is that as the Library was given by will to the Monastery and because Niccolo Niccoli had stipulated because of personal debt, the books be in the hands of a commission, expanded to include four leading citizens. So from 1437 Cosimo de Medici became the driving force behind the library at the Monastery.
(all Humanists together in their admiration and knowldge of Petrarch)
And then, when Huck wondered where this "tale" came from, Lorredan wrote:
Tale?
The book I read was called 'History of Libraries Of The West' by Michael Harris.
He said Cosimo Piero Di Medici. So he meant Cosimo's first born Piero. I did not take that in.(about the letter)
Anyways.....
It is all about Niccolo Niccoli's Library as I said earlier.
It goes to Petrarch's desire to have Libraries and not manuscripts in the hands of a few.
It is also about the network of Religious men like The Augustines and Camaldolian etc.
The Library of Piero's father Cosimo was made up of the best of Niccolo Niccoli's books which included the Commentaries of Travasari on Petrarch's sonnets and letters written in the script we call 'Italic' by Niccolo Niccoli.
When Cosimo was exiled his library went to the Vatican.(1433?)
His son Piero started his own collection- more diverse, as it had a large collection of coins and medals.
Cosimo had paid the debts of Niccolo- so he took his best books and illuminations and with his own collection made three libraries of which by the time of Piero, many were still in the hands of the Papacy.
I was interested in reading more about the Augustinians and the Camaldolians, as I think the rivalries between different orders hasn't been studied enough by tarot researchers. The imagery in Bartolomeo de Bertoli's little book on the virtues and vices is very similar to the imagery of the Cary-Yale cards, and according to Dorez it is Augustinian in character, stemming from the Augustinians in Paris. Their chief rivals were the Dominicans, whose imagery on the virtues and vices can be seen in the Spanish Chapel of Santa Novella in Florence--not much like the tarot. So the Augustinian connection is of interest. I would have thought that trail would have led to Milan, since St. Augustine's tomb was at Pavia, guarded by Augustinians there. But I am open to evidence.

So I requested the Michael Harris book History of Libraries in the Western World. When it came yesterday, I read the chapters on the monasteries and the Renaissance (two different chapters) eagerly. There was nothing about Augustinians or Camaldolians, and what there was about the Benedictines (the Camaldolians' parent order)) was about their tradition of copying books in the Middle Ages, with nothing later than around 1300. (So I assume that the Camaldonlans' main interest continued to be in copying manuscripts.)

Moreover, there was nothing about the contents of Cosimo de' Medici's books from Niccolo Niccolo. All it says is (p 123)
In addition to the works he obtained himself, Cosimo also acquired a library of 800 volumes collected by Niccolo di Noccoli of Florence.
No details about how he acquired it, what was in it, or about Cosimo's collection going to the Vatican during his year of exile.

And about what happened to Petrarch's library after his death, all Harris says (p. 121) is
He [Petrarch] had hoped to see his library made available to the public after his death, but his plans never materialized and his books were scattered.
There is also nothing about Luigi Marsigli, Traversari, Matteo de'Pasti, or even Piero de' Medici.

What you say is interesting and believable, Lorredan, and I want to know more. Perhaps you can give some leads to supporting literature. As far as I can tell, we are still in the dark about how and when the "Trionfi" poem got anywhere. But I might be wrong, since the discussion was happening on at least two threads simultaneously, hard for me to follow even if the Italian had been translated.

Re: Casa del Petrarca

#35
Here's the wiki report to Petrarca's library:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrarch%27s_library

A Filippo Pieruzzi is said to have made the inventory of San Marco either 1442 or 1444. Though ... I didn't found a list.

Currently we have no confirmation for any complete Trionfi manuscript, only some evidence for Trionfi poem snippets (in two cases). I saw something, which I assumed to be the life of Petrarca by Bruni (1436), but I didn't found a note about the Trionfi poem in it.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Casa del Petrarca

#36
Phaeded wrote:
Huck wrote:
The participation of the Albizzi seems to be a minor detail (Piccinino worked mainly for Filippo Maria Visconti). On what report to do you base the importance of the Albizzi in this event?
The only commissioned art we know about in connection with the Anghiari triumphal celebrations (although the Brunelleschi's Dome was lit up) was Andrea del Castagno's painting of the exiled traitors on the facade of the Palazzo del Podestà, after which he was known by the nickname of Andrea degli Impiccati. Castagno's patron was a distant cousin of Cosimo Medici, Bernadetto de' Medici, who served the Florentine army in the same capacity that Marcello did for the Venetians as a providitore. Bernadetto personally recruited Castagno from the Mugello, the Medici "homeland"; i.e., this was clearly a Medici celebration, not just a civic victory. Castagno was not commissioned to paint Piccinino or Visconti but rather Rinaldo Albizzi and 9 of his exiled relations/followers. You need to read Andrea del Castagno and His Patrons (John R. Spencer, Duke: 1991) especially the appendix in which the painted titles under each "hanged man" painted by Castagno are reprinted (#1 is R. Albizzi). [Google books has at least one relevant page available - 17 - on the relationship between Bernadetto and Castagno; you can also buy the book for ~$6 used on Amazon]

Since the paintings of the hanged men represent a series in and of itself, I find it unlikley that the hanged man was represented in the Anghiari trionfo itself (the parade, and therefore, not in the original cards), that presumably passed by the Palazzo del Podesta'.
books.Google.om has the unfriendly side to have page 17 not available to German readers.

Anyway, Vasari told:
(translated at ... http://www.abcgallery.com/list/2003jan06.html
In the small village of Castagno, peasants told stories, something they heard from their old men or something they invented themselves, adding vivid descriptions and likely details...
They say that the father of Andrea was a tyrant. There were 8 children in the family, and the mother, poor soul, died in the birth of the 8th one, so the father, a woodcutter, took revenge for his misfortunes on his kids, beating even the youngest one, but Andrea, the eldest, got the most. The father hated the boy's passion for drawing, and his constant attempts to defend the younger children. Once, after another cruel beating, the father locked Andrea in a barn for several days without food. At night the house of the woodcutter caught fire and burnt to ashes. The woodcutter died in flames, fortunately, the children were safe…. The kind neighbors took the children one by one into their houses. Only Andrea was not welcomed, everyone knew about his bad and closed disposition.

After a while the villagers built a new house on the place of the burnt one, but nobody wished to live there – at night one could hear the horrifying wails of the dead master. The Lord knew, he was a really wicked man.

Andrea's uncle from a neighboring village took the boy. It was a new life. The uncle did not beat him and never deprived him of food; after he saw his nephew's pictures he even allowed him to study with some local painters, who were decorating the village's church. And then a lucky accident came. In 1440, a Florentine aristocrat from the Medici, Connetable Bernadetto, arrived at his estate and heard about the gifted teenager. He took Andrea to Florence. The same year, 1440, Bernadetto Medici commissioned the young artist with his first independent work. Andrea was to depict the execution of the Medici's enemies. The picture was to scare the public and to kill any wish for revolt. The established masters were probably not fond of the idea of frightening their compatriots so they eagerly stepped aside leaving the commission to Andrea without argument. Andrea painted a fresco on the facade of the Palazzo del Podestà (Bargello), which the Medici presented to the city. The plotters, hanged by their heels, looked at spectators with unbearable suffering distorting their faces; their terror-filled eyes haunted the spectators.

The scene was horrifying and the Florentines were scared – the Medici's aim was achieved. But the young painter got the far-from-flattering nickname of Andreino degli Impiccati - Little Andrea of the Hanged Men. The talks started that the young painter was too natural in depicting the executed mutineers. There were ‘witnesses’ who saw Andrea fetching something very suspicious from the cemetery. ‘- Of course, it was a corpse! He hanged it in his studio and drew it!’ – ‘He doesn't need a corpse! He's a big lad, he might have caught a live man, hanged him and then painted the sufferings! The devil helped him!’
Rumors grew, each worse than the next, and Andrea had to leave for a while. He went to Venice, where nobody knew him, and took the name of his native place – Andrea del Castagno.
Only 2 years later, in 1444, he would return to Florence. He had many commissions and, having no family and no friends, worked much, though his ill fame and rumors followed him despite all the attempts by the Medici to stop them.


Here's another life of Castagno ...
http://www.casasantapia.com/art/giorgio ... stagno.htm
also here:
http://members.efn.org/~acd/vite/VasariCastagno.html

..., also by Vasari, but the Hanging Man scene of 1440 is missing. Instead:
In S. Miniato fra le Torri in Florence Andrea painted a panel containing the Assumption of Our Lady, with two figures; and in a shrine in the Nave a Lanchetta, without the Porta alia Croce, he painted a Madonna. In the house of the Carducci, now belonging to the Pandolfini, the same man depicted certain famous men, some from imagination and some portrayed from life, among whom are Filippo Spano degli Scolari, Dante, Petrarca, Boccaccio, and others. At Scarperia in Mugello, over the door of the Vicar's Palace, he painted a very beautiful nude figure of Charity, which has since been ruined. In the year 1478, when Giuliano de' Medici was killed and his brother Lorenzo wounded in S. Maria del Fiore by the family of the Pazzi and their adherents and fellow-conspirators, it was ordained by the Signoria that all those who had shared in the plot should be painted as traitors on the wall of the Palace of the Podesta. This work was offered to Andrea, and he, as a servant and debtor of the house of Medici, accepted it very willingly, and, taking it in hand, executed it so beautifully that it was a miracle. It would not be possible to express how much art and judgment were to be seen in those figures, which were for the most part portraits from life, and which were hung up by the feet in strange attitudes, all varied and very beautiful. This work, which pleased the whole city and particularly all who had understanding in the art of painting, brought it about that from that time onwards he was called no longer Andrea dal Castagno but Andrea degl' Impiccati.
Both versions agree, that Castagno murdered Domenico da Venezia, but some other research found out, that Castagno was dead in 1456 with a plague, and that Domenico was still alive after 1456, so hardly could have been murdered by Castagno.

This passage is interesting: It notes Rinaldo Albizzi and a Judas, who looks like Castagno.

Image


Image


Lives of the most eminent painters, sculptors, and architects
, Volume 2
Giorgio Vasari
George Bell, 1871
http://books.google.de/books?id=yxEGAAA ... no&f=false
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Casa del Petrarca

#37
..., also by Vasari, but the Hanging Man scene of 1440 is missing. Instead:
In S. Miniato fra le Torri in Florence Andrea painted a panel containing the Assumption of Our Lady, with two figures; and in a shrine in the Nave a Lanchetta, without the Porta alia Croce, he painted a Madonna. In the house of the Carducci, now belonging to the Pandolfini, the same man depicted certain famous men, some from imagination and some portrayed from life, among whom are Filippo Spano degli Scolari, Dante, Petrarca, Boccaccio, and others. At Scarperia in Mugello, over the door of the Vicar's Palace, he painted a very beautiful nude figure of Charity, which has since been ruined. In the year 1478, when Giuliano de' Medici was killed and his brother Lorenzo wounded in S. Maria del Fiore by the family of the Pazzi and their adherents and fellow-conspirators, it was ordained by the Signoria that all those who had shared in the plot should be painted as traitors on the wall of the Palace of the Podesta. This work was offered to Andrea, and he, as a servant and debtor of the house of Medici, accepted it very willingly, and, taking it in hand, executed it so beautifully that it was a miracle. It would not be possible to express how much art and judgment were to be seen in those figures, which were for the most part portraits from life, and which were hung up by the feet in strange attitudes, all varied and very beautiful. This work, which pleased the whole city and particularly all who had understanding in the art of painting, brought it about that from that time onwards he was called no longer Andrea dal Castagno but Andrea degl' Impiccati.

Both versions agree, that Castagno murdered Domenico da Venezia, but some other research found out, that Castagno was dead in 1456 with a plague, and that Domenico was still alive after 1456, so hardly could have been murdered by Castagno.
As always with Vasari, his statements need to be verified. But the bottom line in this case is that Castgano was just as dead in 1478 as he was for the wrongly attributed murder. Botticelli painted the Pazzi conspirators.

Not to lose sight of the key point here: Anghiari was a Medici triumphal celebration. If so, how was the allied Anghiari notary's trionfi deck not taking its cue from a Medici artistic precedent that followed the battle?

Re: Casa del Petrarca

#38
Phaeded wrote:
As always with Vasari, his statements need to be verified. But the bottom line in this case is that Castgano was just as dead in 1478 as he was for the wrongly attributed murder. Botticelli painted the Pazzi conspirators.

Not to lose sight of the key point here: Anghiari was a Medici triumphal celebration. If so, how was the allied Anghiari notary's trionfi deck not taking its cue from a Medici artistic precedent that followed the battle?
Well, what precise material do you have for the festivities related to the battle of Anghiari? I myxelf have only concluded, that there must have been festivities, just by studying the course of battles and their result, that Filippo Maria Visconti agreed to have a truce for the rest of 1440. And from the condition, that later around 1503 the decision was done to celebrate this early victory in a great manner. Macchiavelli, who is said to have had arranged this decision, even came to the conclusion (or joke), that Anghiari wasn't a real battle, but it had one victim, who felt from his horse.
So I've not real material and I would like hear more and better arguments, also I'm interested to hear, how it was a specific Medici win and not just a Florentine win.
The Florentine society of 1503, which commissioned the great fresco, was opposed against the Medici, as it had happened with the time of Savonarola and endured till 1513. If Anghiari would have been especially identified as a Medici victory, there would be a contradiction.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Casa del Petrarca

#39
Phaeded wrote: Not to lose sight of the key point here: Anghiari was a Medici triumphal celebration. If so, how was the allied Anghiari notary's trionfi deck not taking its cue from a Medici artistic precedent that followed the battle?
Unless I've missed something, where is the description of this "Medici triumph" in Anghiari? What sort of "artistic" elements did it contain?

Philine Helas, Lebende Bilder in der italienischen Festkultur des 15. Jahrhunderts (1999), provides a comprehensive list, with primary texts, of all of those triumphal parades with "Lebende Bilder", "tableaux vivants" or actors personifying heroes, gods, virtues, angels, mythological and biblical scenes, etc. that took place in the 15th century in Italy, and she doesn't know anything about such a parade in Anghiari. It could be that one is noted somewhere but not described, I don't know.

It seems to me that when Giusti writes "naibi a trionfi", he knows, and expects anyone reading to know, what "naibi" and the accompanying "trionfi" are. So the simplest explanation is that they were already a standard item. The only thing he notes that is unusual is that he had Sigismondo's arms added to them.
Image

Re: Casa del Petrarca

#40
Having read Lorredan's explanation (thanks very much) viewtopic.php?f=11&t=883#p12862
of her remarks about Cosimo's 1418 copy of the Trionfi and looked at the source she mentions, here is my conclusion for the moment.

There seems to be no good reason to think that Cosimo de Medici had copy of Petrarch's Trionfi "by 1418". At least, it does not appear in the only evidence offered, Dale Kent's book. The only reasons at all to think so are to speculate that the copy of "Sonetti di Messer Francesco", mentioned on line 64 of the 1417/18 inventory, posted above, contained the Trionfi as well, or that Dale Kent knows more than she explains clearly in her book. While this may be the case, such speculations are no basis for certainty in tracing the manuscript history of the Trionfi prior to 1440, which is one of the reasons for this thread (and which is an unclear area in general, at least to me, which I have wondered about for years).

Dale Kent, as Lorredan points out, makes the statement that "Cosimo had his own copy of the Trionfi by 1418", in her book Cosimo de' Medici and the Florentine Renaissance (Yale UP, 2000), page 13. The note to this passage leads to endnote 45 of chapter 1, which only says, in relation to Cosimo, as again Lorredan quoted, "See... on Cosimo's books, ch. 4."

Chapter 4 is called "Educating the Patron: What Cosimo Read." It is six pages long, and four of them (33-36) are visible to me on the "Look Inside" feature of Amazon books. As far as I can tell from this view and the "Search" feature of Amazon, "Trionfi" is not mentioned in this chapter. However, on page 35 Kent says "...Cosimo acquired a number of volumes, including a copy of the sonnets of Petrarch, from the library of Salutati, the early humanist chancellor who presided over the city's intellectual life around the time that Cosimo was born." So, if this copy is known to be the same copy as that mentioned in the 1417/18 inventory, and Kent has seen it and knows that it contains the Trionfi as well as the Sonetti, it could be that she has good reason to say that Cosimo also had the Trionfi by 1418, but that reason does not appear in her book, and one wonders why, if that were the case, she didn't say that Salutati's copy also had the Trionfi, especially since the only statement for which she takes the occasion to direct the reader to chapter 4 in the note to the statement on page 13 in the first place is that Cosimo had the Trionfi.

We might just write to ask her what she meant by her remark on page 13. However, Lorredan parenthetically remarks that Dale Kent is "deceased", although I have not been able to discover any evidence that this is the case. A quick search shows that she was scheduled to give a public lecture at UC Riverside in May 2011, so her untimely demise must have occurred relatively recently. She is still listed in the UCR's faculty of History directory
http://www.history.ucr.edu/People/Facul ... index.html

Does Lorredan or anyone else have more up-to-date information?
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mikeh and 17 guests

cron