Re: Anghiari Deck debate

#32
http://www.baldwin.co.uk/media/cms/auct ... MEDALS.pdf

... has a 1444 for the medal of Trevisan
Ludovico Scarampi, Mezzarota, (1402-1465), Patriarch of Aquileia, 1444, cast Bronze Medal, by
Cristoforo di Geremia (active 1456-1476), head right, L AQVILEGIENSIVM PATRIARCA ECCLESIAM
RESTITVIT, rev triumphal procession of cavalry and soldiers before an arch, ECCLESIA RESTITVTA,
EXALTO, 39mm (Hill, Corpus 756; Arm I, 37/2; Kress 212; Pollard 242). A very fine early cast with
brown patina. £300-500
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

#33
In ...

Basini Parmensis poetae opera praestantiora: 2. Della vita e de'fatti di Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta ... commentario del conte Francesco Gaetano Battaglini
by Basinio Basini, Laurentius Drudius, Ireneo Affò, conte Angelo Battaglini, conte Francesco Gaetano Battaglini
ex typographia Albertiniana, 1794

http://books.google.de/books?id=WYEcAQA ... pi&f=false
page 340/341

Image

Image


The source notes a date (17 August 1440) for the appearance of Malatesta at the other political side against Visconti. Though, it describes only an already finished development, not the action itself.

I have difficulties to understand all, but somehow it seems, that Niccolo d'Este, signore of Ferrara (father-in-law of Malatesta), is in this change involved.
From Niccolo we know, that he prepares at least in September 1440 to take Bianca Maria Visconti to Ferrara as part of a momentary truce. [Perhaps one should find the precise dates for this action.]

In the following it seems reported, that Ginevra d'Este died - in contrast to other notes - at 3 September 1440. The other date, that I had, was 12 October (Italian wiki).

The source notes, that Malatesta returned with 1500 horses and 500 fante at October 23 (which fits better with death date for Ginevra at 12 October).

For our specific interest, the Trionfi deck of 16 September, a change of the death date of Ginevra from 12 October to 3 September changes the character of the gift ... in the case, that Giusto knew about the death.

The marriage of Malatesta and Ginevra in 1434 had (possibly) some relation to a theater play in Ferrara, in which 16 Greek/Roman gods appeared. The structure of the play (16 figures) remembered the 16 gods of the Michelino deck.

We worked on this:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=841&p=13105&hilit= ... ste#p13105

Ginevra was the daughter of Parisina, who strongly was involved in playing card production (we know 3 documents, possibly 4, which are rather directly related).
http://trionfi.com/0/d/13
Perhaps there was another deck of cards produced at her wedding (again with 16 gods ?).

Actually we have a note for the production of 2 playing card decks in 1434 in Florence:
(“nel 1434 il Marchese Nicolo III. Faceva pagare a Ser Ristoro e compagni in Florence sette Fiorini d’oro prezzo di due mazzi di carticelle mandatogli a Ferrara”)

If we assume, that Giusto knew about the earlier context of 1434 and the death of Ginevra at 3 September, the new Trionfi deck from 16 September might have had the character of a consolation present. That would be a rather big change in our research.

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

It would have been necessary, that Giusto could receive the note of the death of Ginevra, must have made his plans and order then the deck from Florence and demand, that Malatesta heraldry was included, and this work must have been done in short time and the deck must have found its way to Giusto in a warroir camp and from there to Malatesta near Forli and that all in 13 days.

That seems not impossible, but anyway it would have been a rather stressed operation.

Generally the source seems to rather good informed, better than other sources.

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

Raccolto istorico della fondatione di Rimino, e dell'origine, e vite de' Malatesti. Con vari, e notabili fatti in essa città, e fuori di tempo in tempo successi, distinto in quindici libri di Cesare Clem.ni riminese dell'ord.e e militia di S.to Stefano. Parte prima [- seconda]: 2
Cesare Clementini, Clementino Clementini
1627 - 438 pages
http://books.google.de/books?id=nWrPt3N ... navlinks_s

... this earlier source (1627) has at page 319 as date of death of Ginevra the 12th of October 1440, confirming Italian wikipedia. The text is rather chaotic and some pages are "confused" (double pages), especially before page 319, where p. 337 appears variously.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

#34
Huck wrote
... has a 1444 for the medal of Trevisan:
"Ludovico Scarampi, Mezzarota, (1402-1465), Patriarch of Aquileia, 1444, cast Bronze Medal, by
Cristoforo di Geremia (active 1456-1476), head right, L AQVILEGIENSIVM PATRIARCA ECCLESIAM
RESTITVIT, rev triumphal procession of cavalry and soldiers before an arch, ECCLESIA RESTITVTA,
EXALTO, 39mm (Hill, Corpus 756; Arm I, 37/2; Kress 212; Pollard 242). A very fine early cast with
brown patina. £300-500"
Pollard was the one who originally proposed that the medal celebrated Anghiari. There is no evidence for a secure date for the medal, only that the reverse clearly shows a Roman triumph. When the medal was cast does not matter as much as what event it represents. Clearly Anghiari was a high point in the career of Trevisan.

But we are making too big of a deal of the medal – its importance is to show that triumphal celebrations occurred in connection with Anghiari – and we know that the Church, without the evidence of the medal, did just that by elevating Trevisan to the cardinalate for his actions at Anghiari, in Florence.

But Ginevra again??? My gawd, you are expert in vampircally siphoning off the blood of a primary subject into dead-end, tangential corpses. Florence or Giusti could have given a flying F in regard to Malatesta’s personal life.

Giusti and Florence both wanted something from Malatesta (business and alliance, respectively). The primary/relevant facts before us: a gift of the deck is made in Florence, sometime before Giusti gave it to Malatesta in mid-September. In fact, he must have paid for it the three weeks right after Anghiari, in Florence, amongst the triumphal celebrations there (inclusive of Trevisan’s on July 20th); this is per your own admission - in a rare moment of clarity - earlier in this thread:
Huck wrote:
The observation is, that Giusto left at the 21st of July, but his condottiero (likely in company of some of his soldiers) left at the 17th. As Giusto had "diplomatic function" for his condottiero, he might still have had a few things to do in Florence. Visiting the celebration for Trevisan might have been one of his points.
Giusto had indeed not much time to arrange something in Florence, arriving at 8th/9th of July and leaving at 21st. Well, he might have heard in his soldier camp, that a serial production of Trionfi decks had been done in Florence. He even might have heard about a project to produce something like this already during his stay. He might have commissioned a deck specified on Malatesta heraldry in expectation, that he wished to improve his personal relations to Malatesta.


And there you have it; couldn't have said it better myself.

Phaeded

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

#35
Phaeded wrote:
Pollard was the one who originally proposed that the medal celebrated Anghiari. There is no evidence for a secure date for the medal, only that the reverse clearly shows a Roman triumph. When the medal was cast does not matter as much as what event it represents. Clearly Anghiari was a high point in the career of Trevisan.

But we are making too big of a deal of the medal – its importance is to show that triumphal celebrations occurred in connection with Anghiari – and we know that the Church, without the evidence of the medal, did just that by elevating Trevisan to the cardinalate for his actions at Anghiari, in Florence.
The Reception of Plutarch's Lives in Fifteenth-century Italy, Volume 1
by Marianne Pade
Museum Tusculanum Press, Oct 4, 2007
http://books.google.de/books?id=x5tsP2V ... us&f=false

A translator Picina had dedicated a "Marius" to Lodovico Scarampi Trevisan (some authors use Scarampi without "Trevisan").

Image


He made so, before Vitelleschi was killed. Marius was a strong soldier. If Picina had this idea before Trevisan showed his capabilities in this field, Trevisan must have had shown interest in these dimensions. Trevisan had some emperor biography manuscripts. The council also had the function of a book-fair, one shouldn't overlook this. His faible for Trionfi might have an older date than the battle of Anghiari.

But Ginevra again??? My gawd, you are expert in vampircally siphoning off the blood of a primary subject into dead-end, tangential corpses. Florence or Giusti could have given a flying F in regard to Malatesta’s personal life.
.... .-) ... one shouldn't overlook the women and their importance, especially in matters of playing cards. Isabella got the cards, not Renee.
Ginevra had a great triumphal show, when she married. 16 gods were in the theater play 1433/34, 16 gods were in the Michelino deck, and 16 gods were in the chess book of Evrart de Conty with graphical presentation.

And the husband, whom she married, had a chess-board in his heraldry and an elephant on his helmet, which likely was chosen, cause this presented the Rook, the strongest figure on the chess board.

Helmet with elephant
http://www.danielfearon.com/content/sig ... -1417-1468

And this was a chess figure once ...

Image


And here the chess board in 3 stripes:

Image


16 figures were also in the Visconti book around 1350. And I think, that the Cary-Yale had also 16 trumps.

Reason enough, to ask for a correct date of the death of Ginevra.


Giusti and Florence both wanted something from Malatesta (business and alliance, respectively). The primary/relevant facts before us: a gift of the deck is made in Florence, sometime before Giusti gave it to Malatesta in mid-September. In fact, he must have paid for it the three weeks right after Anghiari, in Florence, amongst the triumphal celebrations there (inclusive of Trevisan’s on July 20th); this is per your own admission - in a rare moment of clarity - earlier in this thread:
Huck wrote:
The observation is, that Giusto left at the 21st of July, but his condottiero (likely in company of some of his soldiers) left at the 17th. As Giusto had "diplomatic function" for his condottiero, he might still have had a few things to do in Florence. Visiting the celebration for Trevisan might have been one of his points.
Giusto had indeed not much time to arrange something in Florence, arriving at 8th/9th of July and leaving at 21st. Well, he might have heard in his soldier camp, that a serial production of Trionfi decks had been done in Florence. He even might have heard about a project to produce something like this already during his stay. He might have commissioned a deck specified on Malatesta heraldry in expectation, that he wished to improve his personal relations to Malatesta.


And there you have it; couldn't have said it better myself.
Well, it's research. One turns the arguments around and around, till the situation improves cause some good idea appear in the process.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

#36
So we have two dates for the death of Ginevra, once a 3 September and another a 12 October. And the Trionfi deck was given at 16 September and it makes a difference, if 12 October or 3 Septemer is the real one.

The source, which gives the date 3 September goes back to Basinio Basini or Basinio of Parma [1425 - 1457), a poet with some time in Mantova, Ferrara, Parma and Rimini.

Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basinio_Basini
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basinio_Basini
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basinio_Basini
http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/bas ... ografico)/

The biographical material (which contains the 3 September) seems to be from Francesco Gaetano Battaglini (1753-1810)
http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/fra ... ografico)/
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

#38
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:Here's Dati's poem on the battle, "Trophaeum Anglaricum", 1443, with German translation and commentary -
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/artd ... ntes65.pdf
Thanks, that's great. It's good to have seen this.

Though the object itself seems of minor value in our question about the state short after the battle. Dati worked for Trevisan (at least the authors - Gregor Maurach and Claudia Echinger-Maurach - text says so; before he had worked for Giordano Orsini, Francesco Condulmer and Pope Eugen, and with the both latter he got trouble, and so finally agreed with Trevisan), and the poem text is given as made 1443 (500 hexameter by Leonardo Dati, that's not too much - given that he had 3 years for this, it would make 1/2 line for each day). The authors think, that it is rather bad Latin, and that their edition (Florenz, Biblioteca Riccardiana, Codex Riccardianus 1207) is possibly not the original of Leonardo Dati.

The content might be forged, at least we have it (also) to do with a dream of Trevisan, who meets Petrus with two keys in the hand (in the dream). And Petrus appears also in a cloud during the battle, and gives good advice. And it is suddenly Trevisan, who detects the dust caused by the approaching army of Piccinino, not Michelotto. That#s all a rather subjective version of the battle of Anghiari.

For the medal the author knows, that the artist very likely wasn't born before 1430. The author even suggests a date of 1456, when the artist really had been in Rome.

May this, as it may be, the whole is panegyric stuff and the historical value might play a minor role. The topic is treated in the manner of the battle of Troja with some Christian attributes.

A biography of Dati:
http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/leo ... ografico)/
The authors state, that the text was successful, but the biography gives not much attention. Dati had some contact with Alberti and helped to organize the poetical contest of October 1441. He seems to have been a difficult man, perhaps "too critical" for the taste of some others. He seems to have been a closer friend of Alberti in 1443/1444 and in this time Alberti started to write his Momus ... perhaps this tells something, and perhaps, why Dati had his difficulties.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

#39
Phaeded wrote:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1049&start=10#p15808
As always, my primary interest is in the fabled Ur-Tarot – and whether you place its creation with Anghiari or in the couple of years before, we are still looking at Florence under the Medici, after Cosimo’s return in 1434, with Pope Eugene IV resident in that city.
hi Phaeded,

Well, we got recently contact to Nerida Newbigin. If you have any specific questions to her in matters of Giusto Giusti, I could attempt to ask her.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: Anghiari Deck debate

#40
Huck wrote:Phaeded wrote:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1049&start=10#p15808
As always, my primary interest is in the fabled Ur-Tarot – and whether you place its creation with Anghiari or in the couple of years before, we are still looking at Florence under the Medici, after Cosimo’s return in 1434, with Pope Eugene IV resident in that city.
hi Phaeded,

Well, we got recently contact to Nerida Newbigin. If you have any specific questions to her in matters of Giusto Giusti, I could attempt to ask her.
Since her primary interests seem to be Florentine civic processions and religious dramas (rappresentazioni), it would be interesting to get her musings on the possible relationship between Anghiari victory celebrations and the St. John procession that took place a week or so before the battle.

Link to her personal webpage with translations of contemporary descriptions of St. John processions in the first half of the 15th century: http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~nnew41 ... rence.html

Of special relevance is the fact that cities and towns under the control of Florence had to participate in the St. John’s procession – specifically likened to a ‘triumph’ by contemporaries - and provide a tribute tax in the form of expensive brocade delivered up to the baptistery. One of these tributary cities was none other than the count of Poppi who had sided with Visconti’s forces and lost Poppi for good to Florence. It was the most tangible of the spoils accruing to Florence following the victory of Anghiari (again, Florence later had to later buy San Sepolcro from the Pope). I don’t know how the Florentines could not link the recent procession (St.John must have been prayed to in order to guarantee their victory) which normally featured Poppi, naturally absent in 1440 as in the field with the enemy Piccinino, and the victory that delivered Poppi into their hands.

So the question for Prof. Newbiggin: could the Florentines conceivably have “recycled” triumphal carts and other elements from the St. John’s procession into a victory triumph for Anghiari, and if so, how likely was that? Machiavelli only mentions the victors received back in Florence with “triumphal pomp.”

Some portions of G. Dati’s description, from Newbiggin’s translation, of the St. John’s procession of 1410:
Two months in advance, they begin to make the pallium and the clothes for the servants and the
pennants and the pennants for the trumpets; and the brocade pallia that the Communes tributary cities pay as tax ….On the morning of the feast day of St John, if you go to look at the Piazza de’ Signori, it looks like a marvelous and magnificent triumph…Close by, around the ringhiera of the Palazzo Vecchio, there are a hundred processional banners or more, on their poles, fastened with iron rings: and the first are those of the major cities that pay tribute to the Commune, such as Pisa, Arezzo, Pistoia, Volterra, Cortona, Lucignano, Castiglione Aretino,and the lords of Poppi and Piombino, who are subject to the Commune...
http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~nnew41 ... ovanni.pdf

There certainly seems to be a brocade pallia covering the triumphal chariot of the Florentine "CVI" trump (neither Visconti-Sforza chariot have this cloth covering):
Image

Phaeded

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests

cron