Magic Moon: Regarding the quotation from the translation I revised (also checking with Andrea, who reads English better than he speaks or writes it, for accuracy of translation), I would say that you are justified in being confused. Andrea wrote another version of the essay for the book in English that he and I edited (with me as translator of his essays), Bologna & the Tarot: an Italian legacy of the Renaissance (Riola: Mutus Liber, 2022). It is clearer, more accurate, and has more documents. It also contains scans of the relevant parts of the three handwritten family trees he found including our Prince, out of four total (the fourth, the Discendenza is in the Scribd upload of the 2017 version). Below, I repeat the scans of the details as well as providing ones for the entire sheets.

There are several documents, with contradictory information.

The 2017 quotation from Andrea that you are trying to understand begins:

It is recorded, on this point, that a Biagio, called the Bolognino, joined up in 1420 with Bentivoglio to conquer Castel Bolognese. The family tree Discendenza di Guarniero I. Progenitore della Nobilissima Famiglia Antelminelli (Descendants of Guarniero I, Father of the aristocratic Antelminelli family) bears the same inscription as the painting: “Biagio detto Bolognino Principe di Monteggiori e Pietrasanta Fugito in Bologna datosi a Bentivogli fu Generale Capitano. dell’Armi in Bologna. E creato Cavagliere fu de’ Signori” (Biagio called Bolognino Prince of Monteggiori and Pietrasanta, fled to Bologna, in service to Bentivoglo, was General Captain in the Army of the Bentivoglios. Was made a Knight and Lord of the Signori).

The information about Biagio joining up in 1420 with Bentivoglio comes from Scipione Pompeo Dolfi, Cronologia delle Famiglie Nobili di Bologna (Bologna: G. B. Ferroni, 1670), pp. 113-114 (my source is Bologna and the Tarot, p. 64).

The next document cited is Discendenza di Guarniero I. Progenitore della Nobilissima Famiglia Antelminelli (Bologna: Longhi, 1727), a single printed sheet of which copies exist in several libraries, Vitali saidin 2022 (p. 65); a scan of it is part of his 2017 essay. It has the quotation about Biagio as Captain General, etc. I did not understand your changes to my translation. The Italian is

Biagio detto Bolognino Principe di Monteggiori e Pietrasanta Fugito in Bologna datosi a Bentivogli fu Generale Capitano. dell’Armi in Bologna. E creato Cavagliere fu de’ Signori.

which I rendered as:

Biagio called Bolognino Prince of Monteggiori and Pietrasanta, fled to Bologna, in service to Bentivoglio, was General Captain in the Army of the Bentivoglios. Was made a Knight and Lord of the Signori.

That seems straightforward enough. You offered the following as an improved translation:

Biagio called Bolognino Prince of Monteggiori and Pietrasanta, generale to Bologna, in service to Bentivoglo, was General Captain in the Army of the Bentivoglios. Was made a Knight and Lord of the Land.

I can't see how "fugito" means "generale" rather than "fled". And "Signori" is just "Signori", not "Land." The Signori constituted the governing body of Bologna, of which it is said that Francesco was made a member.

In any case, here is the relevant part of Discendenza, 1727. You will notice similar wording for Francesco as for Biagio. The reputed inventor of the tarot is of course Francesco.
And the whole sheet, which I have divided into top and bottom:

For some reason, this didn't work, and trying to fix it just made it worse, as can be seen when you click on the attachments that do work - some are out of order, and this one missing. Well, here is the Discendenza in an external link I set up.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/i ... p370kb.jpg

Now I will skip to Andrea's Note 14, which should be the documentation for what has just been said.

14 - Bologna, Archiginnasio Library, coll.32.E.10. In this document the year of the Prince’s death is recorded as
1399.

Note 14 very unclearly, even erroneously, introduces a family tree in the Biblioteca dell'Archiginnasio of Bologna. There are two confusions. First, it is the Discendenza that has Francesco dying in 1399, not this new one, which is something else, handwritten. (I don't know if this was my error or his. Either way, our 2022 book gets it right.) Second, when Andrea went back to verify the Archiginnasio reference for our book, he found it to be different from what he reported in 2017. In 2022 it was still a single sheet, but ""Fondo Speciale, Busta III, 34." I hope that helps.

Added next day, along with subsequent additions put in bold: It occurs to me now that perhaps the ""coll. 32 E.10" reference is correct, for the copy of the Discendenza that Andrea used for his 2017 essay, reproduced there, and the "Fondo Speciale" reference is to a family tree he found later. In 2022 Andrea does not give a reference for the Discendenza, just saying it is in various libraries. I will have to check with Andrea about this. Looking online in WorldCat, the only library having this title in its catalog is the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek; however, WorldCat does not include the holdings of many Italian libraries.

About this last [the "Fondo Speciale" sheet], Andrea adds (Bologna and the Tarot, p. 64, n. 22).

It is one of many genealogies drawn by the distinguished scholar Baldassarre Antonio Maria Carrati between 1763 and 1767.

Here is the relevant part of that one, followed by the whole sheet: You will have noticed that there is one more generation between Castruccio and our Francesco, and a different date of death. I will discuss that in a moment.

You ask:

Is it possible?
Fibbia was compte Palatino?
Fibbia died in 1399?
This document (14) exists?
What this document is?

About your first question. His grandfather, Castruccio Castracani, lord of Lucca, might well have been a Count Palatine, by the grace of the Holy Roman Emperor Ludwig, with whom he was a strong supporter for a while. If he was, what would that make one of the sons (maybe the eldest: it isn't clear) of the eldest son? I don't know about such things. The whole family was Ghibelline, thus loyal to the Emperor when there was a conflict with the Pope. I suppose Emperors can make and unmake Counts Palatine. Another family tree (see the last scan below) does list Castruccio and Enrico as Counts Palatine, but there it stops. No other family trees list Francesco as a Count Palatine, and the Discendenza makes other dubious claims.

That Fibbia died in 1399 is what is said by the Discendenza. Two other family trees, both handwritten, say otherwise. One, that in the Archigennasio, says 1421, as can be seen in the detail above. Another handwritten family tree, in Archivio Famiglio Fibbia-Fabbri Repertorio d'Instrumenti e Scitture b. 206 bis (ex 117 bis), Fibbia Discendenza, Lib. 21, no. 5, Archivio di Stato, Bologna, single sheet, first line "Francesco Fibbia Castracani", has a date "14--": a tear in the paper cuts out the third and part of the fourth digit, leaving only a vertical line, so either a 1 or a 4. These dates are all dates of death, unless otherwise indicated. Here is the relevant detail on the sheet, with the whole sheet following. This one, as the title indicates, is only of the Fibbia-Fabbri members of the family. The Discendenza, with 1399 (the first one shown), appearing to have left out a generation in its family tree (putting an Orlando on the same line as Francesco, a brother, but not one as his father), seems less credible than the other two (or else, I suppose, being later, was less beholden to honoring the date in the painting]). Those two are supported by a fourth family tree, in the same file as the one with the tear but with the first line "Teseo Antelminelli Castracani, Signor di' Lucca". Again the relevant detail and the whole sheet: Of course, all of them were constructed considerably after the fact. The one that has the tear is probably the oldest, because it only goes up to 1670 [Andrea says in 2022]; even that is rather late, and not only that, it is roughly contemporaneous with the painting, as though making slight corrections to what the painting says. The last presented, with no date for our Prince, has the date 1713 for someone's date of death, so it, like the other two, are also later than the painting [unless the 1713 was added afterwards].

The point of Andrea's bringing in Biagio - who appears in various places on the tree - is in part that it testifies to the alliance between the Fibbia and the Bentivoglio. Also, it seems to me, the similar language, for both persons on the family tree plus the painting) suggests a common source attributing the Fibbias' origin in Bologna to the flight from Lucca by the sons of the ruler Castruccio Castracani degli Antonminelli after his death at 44 (malaria). It might well have been neither Biago nor Francesco but Enrico, son of Castruccio and grandfather of Francesco, who actually fled to Bologna, because of the will Andrea found (quoted in the 2017 article) that said that Enrico bought a large house in Bologna after fleeing Lucca in 1328, which the family, a certain Vincenzo in particular, sold in 1475 to the Desideri (Bologna, Biblioteca dell’Archiginnasio, 17 Biografie storiche - Testamenti [Bologna: Typ. Longhi, 1764], Ch. I, no. 12, according to Andrea's note). The original Latin reads:

descendentis a stirpe Henrici primogeniti Castruccii de Castracanis, olim Lucae Principis, qui Henricus expulsus fuit Anno 1328, & in hac civitate Bononiae Domicilium elexit, et habitavit in Domo Magna, sub Capella Sancti Prosperi, quam Vincentius praedictus postea vendidit illis de Desideriis Anno 1475.

After the death of Castruccio Castracani (1328), the sons, including Enrico, would have been persona non grata in Lucca, which now was at the mercy of the Florentines. After that, our Francesco might merely have been the one to adopt the name Fibbia.

About "Francesca Bentivoglio": the name "Francesca" is documented in the Bentivoglio family in that era. One is the Daughter of Anton Bentivoglio (1385-1437), who married a Romeo Pepoli of that era (another name that keeps repeating). Another is Francesca di Guglielmo Bentivoglio, whose husband Francesco di Pietro Iolani died in 1422 (Dolfi, Cronologia, pp. 113-114, in Google Books). Families tended to repeat the same first names, so it is not unreasonable that Francesco, if he married a Bentivoglio, married a Francesca. Unfortunately, family trees tended to leave out the wives.

Note: if you have read this before Jan. 31, please note my additions in bold above.

Wow, thanks. Then he translated it.

I have found the description of the document. It seems that the same document contains the text on Biagio and the text on Prince Fibbia. As for Guarniero, he cannot be Castrucio's son called Guarniero who died as a baby and is in the grave of a San Francisco church, but I cannot find another Guarniero in the extensive Castracani Antelminelli genealogy on Geneanet. I suppose that the Guarniero in the document is quite old, several generations older than Castruccio Castracani. The document is cataloged at this link where you can read the description and the year 1727.

"Discendenza di Guarniero 1. progenitore della nobilissima famiglia Antelminelli Castracani detta in Bologna dalle Fibbie, orionda della casa di Lorena, e reali di Francia circa l'anno di N.S. 900
Testo a stampa (antico) Longhi, Giacomo Pellegrino 1727"

https://sol.unibo.it/SebinaOpac/resourc ... BO02842551

It seems that it is a family tree printed in 1727, that is, not done by hand but perhaps printed. The date seems a little late to me but I suppose it is based on older family documents. I have written to the archive palace and it is possible to buy an image of the document for 6 euros although they say it cannot be disclosed.

I think it is useful to see the document because of the date 1399 on which Fibbia died, according to what Andrea says the document indicates. It is important to find out if Fibbia died in 1419 or 1399. I would also like to see who this Biagio is and confirm the text about Fibbia that is similar in the portrait.

Andrea didn't translate the 2017 or 2013 piece himself. Someone else did so, an Italian whose English was not very clear, at the time the LeTarot site was set up, and I revised it, I think initially in around 2013 and again with some additions in 2017; Andrea read the revisions and additions and approved them.

But for the most up to date version of Andrea's views, you should read the essay that comprises chapter five of the book Bologna and the Tarot: an Italian legacy from the Renaissance (Riola: Mutus Liber, 2022), edited by Andrea Vitali and Michael S. Howard. It deals with the issue in a more comprehensive way, including the question of the validity or not of the reference to trionfi in a 1423 sermon of Saint Bernardino - as reported, however, in ca. 1472 - and other testimonies later for the origin of the tarot in Bologna. Also relevant is a document that may be from the 1540s (but no later than 1650) described in another essay in that book by Ross Caldwell (who, let us be clear, does not accept a date of invention earlier than 1435).

I uploaded only the top half of the Discendenza sheet in my last email (sorry). The publication date of 1727 is in the bottom half. Here are both halves. Andrea gave a different source for this sheet in 2003, Cassa di Risparmio di Bologna Ms. Ambrosini OP 547 (he sent me a copy of the 2003). At some point, perhaps in 2013 when I was revising the translation, he gave the Archiginnasio source present in the 2017 version instead. When he checked the Archiginnasio again in 2022, it had a different catalog number. He writes in an email to me (of Jan. 31, 2025):

At this link http://badigit.comune.bologna.it/books/ ... 1994-9.pdf (column 422) you can find the location of the Archiginnasio (32. H. 8) , but when I went there many years ago it was coll.32.E.10. I probably cited the envelope where the document is kept together with others.

But you can also find it at the Foundation of the Cassa di Risparmio di Bologna https://digital.fondazionecarisbo.it/ar ... di-bologna (Ms. Ambrosini OP 547)

There will probably also be a copy at the State Archives and the University Library.

Please note that 1421 is given for Francesco's death on another family tree, of which I gave scans and the relevant details and library catalog number in my previous post. Another, also given there, has 14--, where the two last digits are at a tear in the paper, although the last one has a vertical line showing and so is either a 1 or a 4. So the 1399 is hardly definitive, far from it. What any of them is based on is not said.

It should be noted also that the tradition in Bologna that the tarot (tarotis, one Latin source says) originated there - and precisely in the period just before 1423, when the Prince was still alive - may have begun with the ca. 1472 Vita of Saint Bernardino, accepted as true since it was approved by the Church. These days we are more skeptical. A ca. 1445 Vita describes playing cards but not trionfi, saying only, after the specific games, in the Latin translation of the vernacular sermon "and with similar" (et consimilia). You are permitted to wonder if the author in 1472 added the bit about trionfi on the grounds that he would have condemned it had they existed, or that he surely did condemn them, if he condemned other such games (not knowing them to be a later invention). There are similar examples of copies of pre-1377 laws and other works that look like the references to playing cards were added by the copyist (see a series of notes by Franco Pratesi, most beginning "Carta da gioco in Europa prima del 1377..." at naibi.net, which I have translated at http://pratesitranslations.blogspot.com/; see on the side the years 2016 and 2017). You are also permitted to wonder if perhaps the good fathers in ca. 1445 deleted the saint's reference to trionfi, replacing it with "et consimilia," perhaps on the grounds that giving the name would provoke too much curiosity about an evil pastime then not well known (but was widespread by 1472). The issue is complex, and I refer you to Andrea's 2022 essay.

I found this work ...

COSE NOTABILI DELLA CITTÀ DI BOLOGNA
OSSIA
STORIA CRONOLOGICA DE’ SUOI STABILI SACRI, PUBBLICI E PRIVATI PER
GIUSEPPE DI GIO. BATTISTA GUIDICINI
PUBBLICATA DAL FIGLIO FERDINANDO
E DEDICATA
AL MUNICIPIO DI BOLOGNA
Volume II.
BOLOGNA
Stabilimento Tipografico Monti
1869

I found the word "Guidicini" (name of the author) only once in this forum (not related) and found it not at letarot.it.

The text ....
https://www.originebologna.com/wp-conte ... BILI-2.pdf
.... contains 26 times the word Fibbia and it knows also something about the prince Fibbia ....

Si attribuisce ad un Fibbia l'invenzione del giuoco del tarocco Bolognese, ed è certo che
nello scudo di una regina vi si vedeva negli antichi giuochi, o mazzi di carte Io stemma
dei Fibbia. Aggiungesi che fra i ritratti della famiglia vi sia quello dell'autore di questo
giuoco, forse il più ricco da società.

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

This is volume 1 of the same text and it has 17 times Fibbia
https://www.originebologna.com/wp-conte ... BILI-1.pdf
This is volume 3 (7 results)
https://www.originebologna.com/wp-conte ... BILI-3.pdf
This is volume 4 (14 results)
https://www.originebologna.com/wp-conte ... BILI-4.pdf
This is volume 5 (1 result)
https://www.originebologna.com/wp-conte ... BILI-5.pdf

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

Search for Antelminelli

Volume 2, page 195

(3) Fibbia
Alcuni dicono che Castruccio Castracani, Duca di Lucca, fra i vari figli avesse Enrico ed
Orlando, e che dal primo discendino gli Antelminelli di Lucca, e dal secondo, mediante
Francesco suo figlio, i Fibbia di Bologna.
Nell' Archivio si trovano altri Fibbia, cioè Bartolomeo di Pasquale che era del Consiglio
dei 2000 nel 1292. Lorenzo uno dei sedici riformatori nel 1412, Biagio detto Bolognino,
che sposò Iacopa. di Ghilino Bianchetti, e andò con Antonio Bentivogli a prender
possesso di Castel Bolognese.
Questa famiglia possedeva le cariche di pagatore delle guardie, di campioniere del dazio
del pesce, della munizione, e delle fosse della città, che rendevano molto emolumento.
Questa famiglia si estinse, e l'eredità passò ai marchesi Fabri.
Furon fatti conti da Urbano VIII.
Nel 1597 avevano beni a S. Giovanni in Persiceto con capellina in luogo detto la Romita.
Possedevano terreni e palazzo fuori porta S. Donato, in luogo detto Pipola, o Spipola.
Nel 1287 avevano case in Saragozza sotto le Muratelle.
Nel 1602 Roberto di Marcantonio era della parrocchia di Santa Maria Maggiore.
Alessandro di Antonio Galeazzo, senator II, fu accademico Torbido, detto l'Assicurato.
Armeggiò nel torneo del 1628.
Conte Alessandro del conte Matteo, senator V. Successe a Matteo suo padre, che gli
rinunziò il senatorato li 22 luglio 1700 in forza di un breve avuto. Ne prese possesso li 30
luglio dello stesso anno, e poi ne vendette il jus al marchese Francesco Monti. Ebbe in
moglie Girolama dal Medico vedova di Gianandrea Landini. Suo padre, oltre il
senatorato, gli rinunziò ancora le cariche della munizione, e le fossa della città.
Li 14 marzo 1702 diede piattonate ad un marchese Imperiali di Genova, e furono spartiti
dalla contessa Anna moglie del conte Giulio Cesare Fibbia suo fratello, poi si
accomodarono. Nel 1705 avendo avuto lo sfratto da Bologna per controversie insorte col
conte Giulio. Cesare suo fratello, fu preso in grazia dalla Regina di Polonia quando passò
per Bologna, ma questa grazia si restrinse ad un semplice salvacondotto.
Alla carica di munizioniere incombeva la custodia delle artiglierie della città, e con
questa andava unita quella delle fossa della città. Questa carica fu confermata da
Urbano VIII al senator conte Matteo Fibbia, e riconfermata da Alessandro VIII al suddetto
Alessandro Egli con beneplacito apostolico, nel 1705 la rassegnò al marchese Paris Grassi
per far dispetto al conte Giulio Cesare suo fratello, il quale avendo avuto per alcuni anni
in affitto le fossa, non pagò mai un soldo. Morì li 24 settembre 1721.
Conte Matteo di Antonin Galeazzo, senator IV. La sera prima della sua morte rinunziò la
dignità senatoria al figlio per breve di Alessandro VIII, e divise le cariche ai figli, e cioè
ad Alessandro la munizione e le fossa della città, e a Giulio Cesare il posto di pagatore
delle guardie e di campioniere sopra il dazio del pesce. Morì d' apoplesia li 23 luglio
1700, in venerdì, a ore 21 1/4, d'anni 86, e fu sepolto in S. Benedetto. Sua moglie fu
Camilla di Marcantonio Zambeccari, ultima del suo ramo, già stata moglie del conte
Angelo Zani, poi del conte Francesco Tarlato Pepoli.
Il detto conte Fibbia, prima dì morire, aveva intenzione di rinunziare il senatorato al
conte Giulio Cesare suo figlio prediletto, ma questi generosamente esortò il padre a
lasciarlo al primogenito.
196
La suddetta Camilla Zambeccari morì pur essa d' apoplesia li 23 dicembre 1700 senza
aver testato, e fu sepolta in S. Benedetto. Era creduta ricca di contanti, d' argenti, e di
gioie, perciò Giulio Cesare tentò negli ultimi momenti di sua vita, che facesse
testamento a suo favore, ma mentre era per riuscirvi, sopravenne Sulpizia Fibbia sua
figlia, vedova di Ridolfo Bonfioli; il conte Giulio Cesare le venne incontro e la cacciò di
casa. I di lei figli Bonfioli cercarono il conte per vendicarsi, ma questi fuggì da Bologna.
Col tempo poi si composero fra loro.
Conte Marco Sitico di Antonio Galeazzo, fu senator III.
Conte Roberto di Marcantonio, senator I, marito di Dorotea Bonfioli, fu fatto senatore in
luogo del conte Camillo Ranuzzi Manzoli, e fatto conte da Urbano VIII. Era dottor in
leggi.

**********

Volume 1, page 91
1572. Li 11 marzo. Compra Ascanio del fu Sebastiano Antelminelli alias Castracani da
Giovanni Battista del fu Biagio Varisani una casa sotto S.Marino nella via del Torresotto
di S.Francesco. Confina Gerone dall'Oglio e Giacomo dall'Oglio, per lire 1500; rogito
Ippolito Poggi.
1575. Li 9 dicembre. Il dottor Antelminelli la vendette a Lorenzo del fu Nicolò dalla Torre
per lire 1600, rogito Sebastiano Drasi.

Volume 3, negative

Volume 4, page 235
1572 11 Marzo. Comprò Ascanio del fu Sebastiano Antelminelli alias Castracani da
Giovanni Battista Varisani del fu Biagio una casa sotto S. Marino nella via del Torresotto
di S. Francesco, che confinava con Giacomo Dall’ Olio. lire 1500 rogito Ippolito Poggi.
1575 9 Dicembre. Il detto Antelminelli la vendette a Lorenzo del fu Nicolò per lire 1600.
Li 5 febbraio 1577 fu comprata da Antonio del fu Girolamo Uccelli per lire 200. Rogito
Ippolito Fibbia.

Volume 4, page 245
Compre fatte nel 1286 per far la piazza di Porta Ravennate.
L’ Alidosi racconta, che Alioto de Bargo e Ubaldo Antelminelli capitani del popolo di
Bologna, per il Comune comprarono i sottodescritti casamenti per allargar il Trivio e far
la piazza intorno alla torre Asinella, e Garisenda.
Nel palazzo dell’ arte dei Strazzaroli vi era una lapide che diceva - 1286 19 novembre
- per opera di Ubaldo Anterminello di Lucca, di Matteo de'i Maggi di Brescia, capitani
del popolo di Bologna, fu fatto il trivio di Porta Ravegnana.

Volume 5, negative

Thanks. Some comments:

Alcuni dicono che Castruccio Castracani, Duca di Lucca, fra i vari figli avesse Enrico ed
Orlando, e che dal primo discendino gli Antelminelli di Lucca, e dal secondo, mediante
Francesco suo figlio, i Fibbia di Bologna.

Some say that Castruccio Castracani, Duke of Lucca, among his various sons had Enrico and Orlando, and that the Antelminelli of Lucca descend from the first, and from the second, through Francesco his son, the Fibbias of Bologna.

This genealogy of Francesco would seem to derive from the already dubious 1727 sheet, making Castruccio Francesco's grandfather, which seems implausible, instead of great-grandfather, and Orlando only a brother of Enrico, and not (also?) the name of a son of Enrico.

Then:

Nell' Archivio si trovano altri Fibbia, cioè Bartolomeo di Pasquale che era del Consiglio
dei 2000 nel 1292.

In the Archive there are other Fibbias, namely Bartolomeo di Pasquale, who was of the Council
of 2000 in 1292.

No genealogy I know of attempts to show that the Fibbia of 1292 had any genetic relationship to the Fibbia name that Francesco appropriated. It was an extinct family, apparently. As the "buckle" on a dog's collar, it fit the dog (cano) of the Castracani arms.

Si attribuisce ad un Fibbia l'invenzione del giuoco del tarocco Bolognese, ed è certo che nello scudo di una regina vi si vedeva negli antichi giuochi, o mazzi di carte Io stemma dei Fibbia. Aggiungesi che fra i ritratti della famiglia vi sia quello dell'autore di questo giuoco, forse il più ricco da società.

The invention of the game of Bolognese taroccgu is attributed to a Fibbia, and it is certain that in the ancient games, or decks of cards, the coat of arms of the Fibbias was seen in the shield of a queen. It should be added that among the family portraits, there is that of the author of this game, perhaps the richest in society.

It asserts that Francesco only invented the "tarocchi Bolognese," and not the tarocchi in general, which of course is both not very interesting (since it only applies to the shortened deck of 62 cards, not the trionfi) and quite dubious, as there is no evidence of regular decks lacking the 2-5 of each suit, or any middle numbers, as opposed to missing the tens or the Queens, in his era. It merely repeats what is in the painting referred to. What Andrea found (in his 2022 essay) is better, in that "tarotis" not qualified by "Bolognese" implies the usual 78 cards.

The Fibbia arms on the Queen of Batons, with the Bentivoglio arms on the Queen of Coins, is only attested in some post-1725 decks (post-1725 because its "papi" are black-faced Africans), possibly extending to the early 19th. See the tarocchini "al Mondo" at https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... 96-0501-16. Other Bolognese decks have no such arms. See for example, the pre-1725 century "Al Torre" on Gallica, at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... 7/f55.item, which has its Queen of Batons. Another example is the "Al Leone" deck of 1770 in Vitali and Zanetti's Il Tarocchino di Bologna. While the Queen of Batons is not shown, the Queen of Coins, p. 52, is lacking any arms on her shield.

Hello

Thank you very much for all the information, so interesting and well explained.

Mike or MikeH: I didn't want to improve your translation. I read in Spanish and the automatic translator sometimes does strange things. I don't understand why it happened: changed "fugito" to "general". Thank you for detecting this error. I wrote the word "land" because I didn't understand the word "signori". I think the Spanish word "señorio" means something similar to duchy, that is, it refers to a region or territory and that's why I wrote "land". In any case, your explanation is useful for understanding. It seems that your translation refers to him being lord of lords. I think that Signori means Lord. I understand the context of the lords who meet with a political function similar to the council of elders. However, I don't understand why you translate it as: lord of lords (lord of Signori). It seems that the original text uses the word lords only once. I think that perhaps the original sentence doesn't say: knight and lord of lords. Perhaps it says: he was made knight of lords. That is: lord one time instead of two times. Sorry because when I write on the phone it is difficult for me to be very exact and to make textual quotes. Automatic translations changes some words similars. I don't know if my translation that I mentioned to you is wrong. If you can, please give us your opinion so we can understand if it is necessary to put the word sir and repeat sirs (signori). I use lord and sir like similar word. I dont know exactly the word that you use becouse i read in spanish. I wirte in spanish and automativmc translation change words similars. I dont have problem with the exactly words but it is important to me understand the concepts and ideas. Thanks!!

I have to spend a few days studying all your material. Congratulations on that book that you have published in 2022. It is very interesting and it is a great work that we like to discover. Thank you very much.

PS: When I wrote my last post I had not yet seen your previous post and yesterday I saw your last two posts on this forum together at the same time. A fantastic surprise gift for my birthday, to continue studying tarot and genealogy together, which are two wonderful subjects. Thank you!

Magic Moon: I made mistakes both in my translation (as it appeared in my critique of yours) and then my explanation that translation, for "E creato Cavagliere fu de’ Signori". You were right to question it.
I wrote:

The next document cited is Discendenza di Guarniero I. Progenitore della Nobilissima Famiglia Antelminelli (Bologna: Longhi, 1727), a single printed sheet of which copies exist in several libraries, Vitali saidin 2022 (p. 65); a scan of it is part of his 2017 essay. It has the quotation about Biagio as Captain General, etc. I did not understand your changes to my translation. The Italian is

Biagio detto Bolognino Principe di Monteggiori e Pietrasanta Fugito in Bologna datosi a Bentivogli fu Generale Capitano. dell’Armi in Bologna. E creato Cavagliere fu de’ Signori.

which I rendered as:

Biagio called Bolognino Prince of Monteggiori and Pietrasanta, fled to Bologna, in service to Bentivoglio, was General Captain in the Army of the Bentivoglios. Was made a Knight and Lord of the Signori.

That seems straightforward enough. You offered the following as an improved translation:

Biagio called Bolognino Prince of Monteggiori and Pietrasanta, generale to Bologna, in service to Bentivoglo, was General Captain in the Army of the Bentivoglios. Was made a Knight and Lord of the Land.

I can't see how "fugito" means "generale" rather than "fled". And "Signori" is just "Signori", not "Land." The Signori constituted the governing body of Bologna, of which it is said that Francesco was made a member.

Looking closely on p. 65 in the book - my own 2022 translation, - what I find is:

Biagio called Bolognino Prince of Monteggiori and Pietrasanta, fled to Bologna, in service to Bentivoglio, was Captain General of the Army in Bologna. Was made a Knight by the Lords.

That is what I wrote in 2022, which Andrea approved, and is correct, I think. The compound "dei" often means "by the" in such contexts. And of course, my explanation of "of the Signori" was quite wrong. In the first place, it wasn't Francesco, and in the second place, it is not said that either Francesco or Biagio was made a member of the Signoria. Please accept my apologies. It has been difficult for me to get back into this complex subject-matter, now that I have moved to other concerns.

Spanish in many ways is closer to Italian than English, so your input is very valuable, just as long as neither of us depends on either Google Translate or our own guesses to do the work! If you are not sure that your meaning is being conveyed accurately in English, feel free to write it (along with your English) in Spanish. I at least have some rudimentary understanding of Spanish grammar. And happy birthday/feliz cumpleaños.

Hello

About Antelminelli:
I saw Hucke's comment today, which I hadn't seen yesterday. I suppose that the surname Antelminelli in the 14th century is sometimes mentioned as a short form of referring to the surname Castracani degli Antelminelli. I don't know if there were people in Lucca with the surname Antelminelli (without Castracani) at that time, but Castruccio's family was always Castracani degli Antelminelli, as far as I understand. If there were Antelminelli (without Castracani), I suppose they were from another branch, but many Antelminelli had another surname attached to them at that time, according to what I've read. Some texts found by Hucke mention Antelminelli (without Castracani), but perhaps they were really Antelminelli Castracani.

About family trees:
The tree with the year 1713 (noted in someone below on the right) seems quite complete. The 1727 tree actually has several people's positions out of place, that is, several relationships are confusing or wrong. Both trees have the surnames in the same order as Fibbia's painting: Antelminelli Castracani Fibbia (not Castracani degli Antelminelli).

About Biagio:
Probably Mike's translation approved by Andrea is correct. I have thought a similar way of understanding the same thing: "created knight, was of the lords". That is, he was a knight and also he was one of the lords, that is, he belonged to the lords. This is the same that: He was a lord among lords. It looks similar concept than at Mike translation. OK. Very good. Besides, Biagio is not too important now that we can see four family trees with a lot of data and have a global vision of the context. Thanks Mike for the explanations and translations.

About Francesca Bentivoglio:
It is very interesting to know that Andrea has discovered a Francesca daughter of Anton Bentivoglio who I understand is the same Anton Galeazzo who governed in Bologna (1420-1435). Realy? I think that maybe this Francesca is the same one who married Prince Fibbia before being married to Francesco di Romeo Pepoli. But it is not possible: if we take into account that Biagio worked in 1420 and was Fibbia's grandson, we deduce that Francesca married Fibbia around 1380, so it could not be the same Francesca married to Pepoli, who is called Francesca in that 1670 book but is called Isabella on Wikipedia. We can see the name Francesca at the bottom of page 13 of that book that Mike mentions. I can't find Biagio in those pages but it is an interesting text.

https://books.google.es/books?id=fQJNZw ... &q&f=false

Then, Fibbia's wife (Francesca) was this Francesca's aunt. The same in spanish: Francesca la mujer de Fibbia era tia de esa Francesca o Isabella que era hija de Anton y que se casó con Pepoli. I wonder if Giovanni's daughter was really called Francesca or Isabella or maybe Francesca-Isabella.

Information about Anton Galeazzo Bentivogli (Treccani and Wiki):
https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/an ... ntivoglio/
https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_G ... entivoglio

About working as Bentivoglio's general:
Fibbia was Giovanni's son-in-law (according to Fibbia's portrait) but he could have worked as a general for Giovanni I Bentivoglio or for Anton Galeazzo Bentivoglio who was Giovanni's son. Giovanni fought for power from approximately 1399 to 1401 but died early, in 1402. Afterwards, Anton fought for power from 1416 until he ruled from 1420 and continued to rule until he died in 1435 (not 1437). If Prince Fibbia died in 1399 (according to a tree) then he could only work as a general for Giovanni. But if Fibbia lived until 1419 (according to the portrait) or 1421 (according to another tree) then he was possibly Anton Galeazzo Bentivoglio's general. I don't know if Giovanni had his own army. I suppose that possibly Anton had a more consistent Bolognese army but I don't know. I think Vitali thinks that Fibbia was Anton Galeazzo Bentivoglio's general, like Biagio. I only intend to confirm that Fibbia did not die in 1399 (death of his father Orlando) and that Fibbia was not Giovanni's general. By the way, it seems that Biagio was really Fibbia's grandson, although in the 1727 tree it appears that both are brothers.

About compte palatine:
It seemed strange to me that Fibbia was count of the Palatinate (Germany) but later I discovered that count palatine is only a count with high status related to the concept of the palace in general.

About the date of Fibbia's painting:
In the family tree from 1727 we see the name Giovanni written just above Prince Fibbia. This seems to me to be consistent with the error in the text of Fibbia's painting where it says that he is the son of Giovanni, who was actually his grandfather's brother. So, I wonder why Andrea says that Fibbia's painting is from the 17th century. What are his reasons? I respect his date a lot but I don't know the reasons. I think Giordano and others suggest the 18th century for Fibbia's painting. If it is a painting before 1727, then I suppose that the 1727 tree shows that error. However, I think that the lines of the 1727 tree suggest that Fibbia was the son of Valerano, although we know that the reality was different. I only ask this question to know if the 1727 tree is after or before the painting because I find it curious that Giovanni is right above the prince in the 1727 tree.

About Tarocchino Bolognese:
It is strange that the coats of arms of Fibbia and Bentivoglio are not preserved in Dalla Tore. I think I have read that Giordano Berti suggests that the two coats of arms were incorporated into the Tarocchino late when Fibbia's painting was painted. I think that possibly in the 17th century there was some edition of Tarocchino that already had the coat of arms of Fibbia and Bentivoglio but there is no evidence. The emperor's letter is drawn on the letter that Fibbia has in his hand in the painted portrait. It does not seem that this emperor is a Moor but the hat is larger than in the Dalla Tore edition. What do you think about this small card emperor painted?

On the other hand, I have doubts about the date of the Tarocchino with Moors, created between 1725 and 1775. On the box of the Al Soldato reproduction they have written 1750 but I don't know what date Al Mondo has.
I suspect that Al Soldato is older than Al Mondo because Al Soldato has Moors with globes and they are similar to Dalla Tore's Papas. However, Marco Benedetti thinks that Al Mondo is from 1725. He says that he is not a historian and that you have to ask Andrea about that but on the museum's website there is that comment by Benedetti that suggests more similarity between the Moors of Al Soldato.

By the way, another doubt I have had is whether Sylvia Mann (a scholar of the Tarot of Lucca) left her natal Germany to live in England when she was president of the playing card society, which I suppose was founded in England.

Thanks family and Mike for every thing!

Next day !!:
I correct a mistake about Francesca's husband who correctly is Pepoli. And I add something in this point, about the book (1670 year) that Andrea and Mike mentioned.

Hi Huck

I read your reflection on Lucca, the card-scattering emperor and Prince Fibbia a while ago. I found it interesting and likely. Now that I have studied Fibbia's background more thoroughly, I have some doubts and would like to know your point of view on the following.

According to the Treccani encyclopedia, it seems that Enrico and Orlando (Fibbia's grandfather and father) lived outside of Lucca. Even Castruccio (Fibbia's great-grandfather) I think did not live in the city of Lucca but in Monteggiori, when he was not travelling or on the battlefield, I suppose. From this point of view, I am not sure that Fibbia was raised in Lucca region. I consider it unlikely that Fibbia was born or lived in the city of Lucca. Enrico lived in exile, especially in Milan and possibly also in other places, always avoiding going near Lucca. Orlando lived in several cities, even in Brescia.

Mike points out an interesting detail. Enrico bought a house in Bologna. I would like to find the complete paragraph of the text in Latin or translated because I have some doubts about the gramatical subject of the sentence. But it is interesting to know that Enrico and Orlando had a house in Bologna. I have thought about it and I do not believe that they lived there permanently. Enrico could have lived in that house in Bologna punctually, especially the last months of his life, from when he made the will until he was hanged in Bologna. Treccani says that he was hanged the year after the will. Exactly in the same month, so I have a small doubt and I think that there may be an error in Treccani's date. Orlando worked in various cities but I do not know of any evidence that he lived for some time in Bologna. I think that possibly Orlando rented the house in Bologna as he did with other properties to earn money. In short, I think that Fibbia went to marry and live in Bologna (around 1380), probably in his father's house, who was still alive, since Orlando died in 1399. Fibbia was probably born and raised where his father lived, that is, in cities outside of Lucca, if I remember correctly. So, perhaps Fibbia learned a game that was played in Lucca, but it is interesting to consider where Fibbia could have actually been raised. Perhaps his cousins ​​from Monteggiori played cards with Fibbia and that is how Fibbia learned. When Fibbia settled in Bologna to start a family, he knew about that game and spread it. This would be my reinterpretation of your theory.

I have another question. The emperor visited Lucca and spread the existence of playing cards there. Later, Fibbia learned a trump card game common in Lucca and brought it to Bologna, according to the theory. I wonder how and when the supposed evolution from card games to the trump game took place in Lucca, before Fibbia brought the idea or a deck of the trump game from Lucca to Bologna, having learned that game outside of Lucca and outside of Bologna, in any Italian city not far from the Lucca culture, I suppose. By the way, possibly, in Brescia the game of trumps with a deck of suits was common as we see a century later.

Personally, I imagine that the supposed trump game that Fibbia perhaps learned or invented was not a deck with 21 trumps but perhaps a game with some courtly figure (or all of them) more powerful. For example, I think that Andrea Vitali imagines that Fibbia invented cards like those of tarot, such as for example the hanged man card inspired by a mural of San Petronio in Bologna. I don't know if Vitali believes in the archetypal deck as an invention of Fibbia or if he thinks that Fibbia invented less than 21 trump cards. Huck, what kind of game or deck do you specifically imagine that Fibbia could have invented? Do you imagine that they were possibly cards with allegorical illustrations like in the tarot? How many special cards do you imagine or suspect that Fibbia's deck had? One emperor? Eight emperors? Fourteen trumps perhaps? A smaller number of trumps?

Thanks family. I like how you work investigating.

My impression is that Andrea thinks that Fibbia's tarocchi might have had 14 trumps; the only basis he offers is the weak one of the 5x14 theory: in Bologna and The Tarot, p. 2, he says "at the beginning there may have been only fourteen allegories," with a long footnote summarizing Huck's 5x14 theory. As to what the subjects would have been, the only basis I can think of for the choice would be what would have a satirical function against the papacy, because he was a Ghibelline and the Church had a hand in the family's loss of Lucca. By the same token, I don't think Andrea holds that the game after him would have had all the same subjects, precisely because card makers would have been more interested in sales than in irritating the Church. All of this is pretty speculative. You can email Andrea yourself, at info@letarot.it.

In Bologna and the Tarot, p. 57, Andrea says that the clothing in the painting is 17th century. He cites Italian historical dress expert Elisabetta Gnignera on this, by personal correspondence as a consultant. Her biography on p. 388 cites her numerous books and academic positions. I saw her once in a British (BBC?) documentary on Leonardo, who is the subject of one of her books. Andrea adds that "The work was painted by an unknown artist around the thirties of the seventeenth century." Whether the thirties is part of Gnignera's assessment is not clear. Again, you can ask Andrea.

Another consideration, for some time in the 17th century, is that it is known that Filippo Bentivoglio was a sponsor of Mitelli's tarocchino in 1663-1669; so we at least know that the Bentivoglios were interested in tarocchino in that century. It is certainly possible that the Fibbia and Bentivoglio arms were in a tarocchino before 1725. Tarocchini both with and without those arms were produced in the 1725-1775 period: "Al Mondo" (British Museum) with them and "Al Leone" (in Il Tarocchini di Bologna, pp. 49-59) without them.

As to which of the two is earlier, the 1770 "Al Leone" or the "Al Mondo" with the Bentivoglio and Fibbia arms, I know that Benedetti (in the British Museum's notes) thinks that the "Al Mondo" is "closer to 1725 than 1775," on the basis that it is more like the pre-1725 "Dalla Torre" than any other with Moors. But this claim seems to me dubious. Two of the 1770 "Al Leone" Moors hold a trisected orb, in precisely the same positions as the "Dalla Torre" Papi, whereas none of the "Al Mondo" Moors holds orbs at all. I will scan the 1770 Moors when I get a chance (I use a scanner at my local public library). I cannot endorse a dating of the "Al Mondo" one way or the other. The date "1770" is on the "Al Leone" Page of Batons' shield, which I showed earlier.

The point about the 14th century Francescas is just that "Francesca" was a name the Bentivoglios used close to the time Francesco would have married, even if it is true that these Francescas were born a decade or two later than the woman that our Prince probably would have married.