Re: The 14 + 8 theory

51
Iolon wrote: 27 May 2022, 16:26 Hello Ross,
It is only recently that I heard about this possible attribution to Franco dei Russi and the possibility that the blazon is from the Bon family. Personnally I think it would be very improbable that Francesco Sforza would dedicate this extremeny precious deck to a Venetian family. However, I'm just a Tarot enthusiast and not at all an art historian. So let us wait what will be revealed during the Tarocchi virtual study day.
Yes, it should be informative, especially if we formulate some good questions. Even though Roberta Delmoro, who presented this theory in the catalogue, isn't presenting, she may be in the audience. Thierry Depaulis, who also helped develop it, will be a main presenter.

The expense would not have been too great for Sforza. He bought his own decks of the finest quality, and he presumably had some made for Sigismondo Malatesta when he asked. They could have been quite common gifts among these people.

It is important to remember Francesco Sforza's deep connections to Venice, and what a great achievement the Peace of Lodi was in 1454. Venice got Bergamo as part of the settlement, and Nicolò Bon was Podestà of Bergamo 1457-1458. Sforza and Bon may have had a friendship for a long time.

Re: The 14 + 8 theory

52
I know, but in 1451 Venice, Naples, Savoy, and Montferrat joined forces against Sforza, who turned to Cosimo de Medici and concluded a Milan–Florence alliance that brought the Peace of Lodi (1454) and permitted him to consolidate his rule over Milan. Cosimo de Medici was the principal architect of the treaty of Lodi. So it seems to me much more plausible that he used the blazon of the Commune of Florence in the Visconti-Sforza deck, that was made in my opinion at this occasion (see our discussion on this forum about the origin of the red and white blazon on the Knight of Swords, the Knight of Batons and the Ace of Coins cards).

Re: The 14 + 8 theory

53
Ross Caldwell wrote: 27 May 2022, 08:50 The consensus dating for these six cards going forward will be "1465-1470," and attributed to Franco de' Russi in Venice. Most famously, Franco de' Russi worked with Taddeo Crivelli in the Borso d'Este bible.

See page 64 in the catalogue for the recent exhibition "Tarots enluminés," held at the Musée français de la carte à jouer in Issy-les-Moulineaux, December 2021 to March 2022.
Out of curiosity, how does Russi address Dummett's previous attribution (the dating being just a little earlier):

The pack was the product of the Bembo workshop: of the surviving 35 picture cards, Benedetto executed six and Bonifacio the remainder (missing are the Devil, the Tower or Lightning and the Cavallo di Denari), Benedetto's earliest datable work is the Torchiara polyptych, signed and dated by him to 1462. Therefore must have been painted in the early 1460s….On the hypothesis that Benedetto painted the six cards, there is no need to suppose the original versions of them to have been lost or damaged: we have the original versions.” Dummett, Michael. “Six XV-Century Tarot Cards: Who Painted Them?” Artibus et Historiae 28, no. 56 (2007): 15–26, 22.

When one insists on one thing (the six were original) and is possibly wrong on something else (the artist) its hard to accept any point being made as certain. How confident do you feel about Russi's interpretation and does she believe they were original to the deck or replacements? If replacements, given the theory that the 6 are replacements, why wouldn't they simply have followed the original designs as replacements, and what does that really change about how we'd view the PMB? As for the possibility they were original....

It seems an impossibility to me that the highest court card in the deck, the King of Swords, would have on his shield Venice's lion of St. Mark unless Sforza's war or peace with Venice (1451-1454) was being referred to; no way that deck was made without those six trumps (e.g., a cardinal virtue would not be missing) - however designed - so the competing theory that the entire deck is late would need to explain all of the odd idiosyncrasies to that later period. As for the king of Swords, what happened in the mid/late 1460s for Milan to recognize Venice in such a prominent manner?

And certainly you don't accept Dummet's Bon stemma theory do you? Regarding the Ace of Coins (with the best view of the stemma in question) - have you looked at the high resolution photos Iolon took? https://tarotwheel.net/history/tarot%20 ... -deck.html

My observations, tucked away in the Exhibition Gallery here: viewtopic.php?p=24817#p24817
A Foscari grossone detail of St. Mark superimposed over Iolon's photo:
Image

Phaeded

Re: The 14 + 8 theory

54
Regarding the Bon stemma, Delmoro consulted with those who curate the cards in Bergamo (she may have gone to study them herself, I'm not sure), see footnote 29 of page 77 (included above) and was able to verify that it is simply red and silver, with no design underneath. Like Samek-Ludovici in 1974 (mentioned in footnote 28 on page 77), who believed he could make out a figure in the silver part, you are seeing things that aren't there.

The theory would be that Sforza gifted Bon, probably Nicolò Bon, with the whole deck in 1458 or so (Nicolò died in office, and was replaced by his son, Alessandro). Several cards were lost, and replaced by de' Russi in the 1460s.

The researchers note that the cliff edge matches Bembo's Death card, suggesting that de' Russi used it as a model. Devil and Lightning are missing. But when they are included in the hypothetical sequence, it is possible to imagine that a continuous sequence Temperance-World was lost, a chunk. This gave Thierry the idea that maybe in Milan an order was observed that he called C', part C with Temperance between Death and Devil, and part A, with Angel high.

Since Ferrara moved the Virtues to new locations, I believe for ad hoc exegetical reasons, perhaps Don Messore himself established it, I suppose it is not implausible that Milan changed the original place (as I see it) of Temperance as well. At least it fits nicely with how Temperance came to be lost with the other cards that otherwise form a continuous sequence.

This is similar to Depaulis' observation on the BAR sheets, that, if they are taken as including 12 cards that were a sequence in Bologna, it is consistent with the idea that the Chariot was "high," or just before the Wheel of Fortune, in Bologna at that time. The Chariot is present, but none of the Virtues are.

Re: The 14 + 8 theory

55
Phaeded wrote: 27 May 2022, 23:49 Out of curiosity, how does Russi address Dummett's previous attribution (the dating being just a little earlier):

The pack was the product of the Bembo workshop: of the surviving 35 picture cards, Benedetto executed six and Bonifacio the remainder (missing are the Devil, the Tower or Lightning and the Cavallo di Denari), Benedetto's earliest datable work is the Torchiara polyptych, signed and dated by him to 1462. Therefore must have been painted in the early 1460s….On the hypothesis that Benedetto painted the six cards, there is no need to suppose the original versions of them to have been lost or damaged: we have the original versions.” Dummett, Michael. “Six XV-Century Tarot Cards: Who Painted Them?” Artibus et Historiae 28, no. 56 (2007): 15–26, 22.

When one insists on one thing (the six were original) and is possibly wrong on something else (the artist) its hard to accept any point being made as certain.
On page 64 (included above), second paragraph:

"Returning to these cards in 2007, Michael Dummett proposed to attribute them to Benedetto Bembo, brother of Bonifacio, suggesting that the two artists shared the work. But it is implausible that a complete Tarot deck would have been delivered with such great stylistic differences. Moreover, the known works of Benedetto Bembo are quite far from those of the Tarot."

In other words, Dummett was simply wrong about the artist.

Re: The 14 + 8 theory

56
Ross Caldwell wrote: 28 May 2022, 08:56 Regarding the Bon stemma, Delmoro consulted with those who curate the cards in Bergamo (she may have gone to study them herself, I'm not sure), see footnote 29 of page 77 (included above) and was able to verify that it is simply red and silver, with no design underneath. Like Samek-Ludovici in 1974 (mentioned in footnote 28 on page 77), who believed he could make out a figure in the silver part, you are seeing things that aren't there.

The theory would be that Sforza gifted Bon, probably Nicolò Bon, with the whole deck in 1458 or so. Several were lost, and replaced by de' Russi in the 1460s.

There are parallel horizontal lines going across the bottom third of the right side - some are choosing to not see things that are clearly there. A straight line is not the result of a randomly abraded illumination. It would be nice to see if any forensic testing would reveal a drawing beneath.

More problems, going back to our older discussions here: Arms identification in Visconti-Sforza viewtopic.php?p=21761#p21761

If the primary color is silver on the right - oxidized to a dull gray as happens in all illuminations in manuscripts - then why are all of the smaller shields on the court cards a goldish hue, right next to dull gray oxidized silver, showing they are not silver?:

Image


Is it not more likely for the "calling card" of the Ace of Coins to have been tampered with over time with the too small shields on the horses' caparisons deemed to small to tamper with?

As for the Bon, I had mused in that older post that the Bon were "loosely connected to Colleoni through mutual Venetian patrons [namely Antonio Morosini], but that would mean an overpainting by Bon after they acquired it after Colleoni died at a later date." Perhaps the design I'm seeing - including the perfectly straight lines - are merely the marks of the scraping off of an original color (the base red still visible), followed by the over-painting with silver?

More specifics on Morosini:
The courting of Colleoni depended to some measure on the personal trust that had developed between the mercenary captain and nobleman Andrea Morosini, who served as intermediary between Colleoni and the Republic. The condottiere let it be known that he was interested in returning to the Venetian side although his demands were high: he wanted 100,000 ducats per year and appointment as captain-general....Both Dolfin and Sanudo [noted near contemporary Venetian historians] also report that another facet of the negotiations to rehire Colleoni involved a proposal for him to marry one of his daughters to Morosini's son Paolo, who was to in turn receive in turn a condotta with Colleoni's forces." Romano, Dennis, The Likeness of Venice: A Life of Doge Francesco Foscari, 1373-1457, 2007: 258)

The fact remains that Colleoni's home province of Bergamo was eventually granted to him by Venice after his defection from Sforza. Bergamo was painted in Sforza' stemmario exactly as the stemma appears on the caparisons (however reversed they seemed to have gotten the gold/red actually used in Bergamo, this is the record of how the arms of Bergamo were conceived of in Milan):

Image

Of the reproduction of that work:
Probably the most famous of the stemmari Italian Renaissance among scholars and art historians from around the world, this lavishly illustrated manuscript – probable by Gian Antonio da Tradate – is preserved in the Biblioteca Trivulziana Castello Sforzesco di Milano, together with the magnificent treasures once belonged to the powerful and abundant family of Trivulzio. This code back to the years when the condottiere Francesco Sforza became Duke of Milan (1450-66) [others have narrowed it to 1461-66] … It reproduces – along with the coats of arms and enterprises members of the Ducal House – approximately 2000 coats of arms of families and municipalities of the Duchy, but also some families connected, for different reasons, to the Dukes: so you can recognize, for example, the coat of arms of Germanic Fugger merchants and bankers, or the Ducal Adviser Cicco Simonetta, Calabrian in origin, or of several powerful families of condottieri (Brandolini, Savelli, Orsini, Colonna, etc.) and Lords (Scaligeri, Este, Gonzaga, etc.). Stemmario Trivulziano, Carlo Magige, Edizioni Orsini De Marzo-Milano-2000

The Bon are not in it; I don't think any Venetians are. Luxury decks are expensive - there were plenty of other Venetian patricians more important to Sforza than Bon; one would almost have to assume he was gifting all of them in order to get down the list to the Bon. But this is all nonsense - its hard to imagine Sforza gifting any Venetian a luxury deck of cards outside of those already being bribed by him. After the Peace of Lodi the most likely candidate would be ruler-to-ruler, to Doge Francisco Foscari (just as another fellow ruler, Malatesta, received a deck from Sforza). Their respective banners, etc. interred in the church on the Venetian monastery island of St. Michelle due to the Augustinian friar, Fra Simone, who facilitated the peace.

We do know of Venetian Patricians accused of being bribed (and tried in Venice) by Sforza - the Bon are not among them. But again, the only evidence we have of Sforza card deck-gifting is to a ruler (even the Giusti reference is a Florentine deck to a ruler). Ostensibly that was the point of luxury decks - expensive gifts between rulers, hardly a novel thought.

So the timeline that makes the most sense to me:
* 1449 Sforza, with Colleoni as a lieutenant, is the Venetian Captain-General, sieging Milan. The Venetian patrician Marcello, over-seeing the Venetian contingent, is in his camp (and why Venetian grossone would be especially known in Sfroza's camp); Marcello acquires the Marziano deck during the siege of Milan, sparking the idea for expanding the ur-tarot, adding similar Deificatione Sexdecim Heroum/"gods" (in this case, the 7 planetary gods, in keeping with Dantean source material)
* 1452/3 Sforza gifts the PMB to Colleoni and promises Bergamo, knowing that's what he wants but what Venice currently held (the territory had switched hands between Visconti/Sforza and Venice, it being much closer to Milan it was problematic). The Lion of St. Mark on the highest court card of the King of Swords is satirical, i.e., "I too was Captain-General for Venice, and then they tried to poison me - that's who you are going to go work for?" What else could that shield imply besides the office of Venetian Captain-General? Moreover, it is the militaristic knights that feature the Bergamo coat of arms - the fiefdom being held out to the condottiere Colleoni (with the caveat that the Milanese depicted the reversed arms that way).
* Morosini maintains his relationship with Colleoni as the one who brought him over to Venice and at some point acquires the cards.
* The Bon acquire the deck from Morosini, those families also have a long-standing relationship. Being artists, have no technical issue with scrapping/over-painting the ace.

Either Morosini or the Bon receive the deck in a condition in which some cards need to be replaced and have that done. Mid-1460s? Fine.

The alternate explanation:
* Sforza gifts the deck to Doge Foscari as part of the festivities to celebrate the Peace of Lodi, his artist botching Foscari's arms on the Ace of Coins (unlike the Milanese who carred the Visconti-Sforza arms, the Venetians did not carry the doge's arms but that of St. Mark, so Foscari's arms never seen in the field), and the lion of St. Mark on the king of swords shield as well as the Bergamo arms on the suit of swords all refer to the Doge's new Captain-General for Venice, Colleoni - Sforza making a visible gesture that he is OK with the loss of his most important lieutenant.

Either is possible. Any other alternative would need to explain the oddities of the deck's knights and king of swords.

Phaeded

PS In my opinion there knights on the reverse of the medal of Visconti minted at the same time Sforza had his medal made and married the duke's daughter, also featuring a knightly horse, because Sforza was was expected to maintain Bergamo, a hilly city in the foothills of the Alps, while fending off Venice or even taking back its terra firma possessions (tower of St. Mark in the distant city-scape, beyond the mountains of the Bergamasque). Bergamo always had a heightened significance (maybe only Crema was more contested):
Image

Re: The 14 + 8 theory

57
Phaeded wrote: 28 May 2022, 15:16
There are parallel horizontal lines going across the bottom third of the right side - some are choosing to not see things that are clearly there. A straight line is not the result of a randomly abraded illumination.
I have no dog in this fight. The only ideas I care to defend are that the cards from the different artist are replacement cards, not an expansion from a smaller number, and the that the original deck containing all of the cards, including the 22 standard trumps, was entirely painted by Bonifacio Bembo. As for abrasions, however, it seems to me that it is indeed possible for paint or silver/gold leaf to abrade in a straight line, or along the line of the original brush stroke. Many abrasions have led to funny ideas, such as Gaetano Cattaneo, viewing the VdM cards with Leopoldo Cicogonara, seeing the name "Martiano" on the hem of Faith's robe.

I accept that Franco de' Russi is the best candidate for the new artist offered so far, and this means they were painted in Venice or the Veneto. This tends to support that the original deck was made for a Venetian. The haloed lion on Bembo's King of Swords' shield is enough proof.

I also think that Thierry's has made an elegant case for the coherence of the missing part of the sequence that had to be remade.
It would be nice to see if any forensic testing would reveal a drawing beneath.
It could well do. Marie-France Lemay, Paper Conservator at Yale and our expert for the Visconti di Modrone, says that they found a watermark on some of the VdM card paper that dates them precisely to between 1439 and 1442, with the "average" dating of 1441. I don't know the method they used, some kind of spectroscopy, UV or infrared, but in my opinion it would be very helpful if it were used on all of the 15th century cards. We could use such a dating method for the Rothschild cards!
More problems, going back to our older discussions here: Arms identification in Visconti-Sforza viewtopic.php?p=21761#p21761

If the primary color is silver on the right - oxidized to a dull gray as happens in all illuminations in manuscripts - then why are all of the smaller shields on the court cards a goldish hue, right next to dull gray oxidized silver, showing they are not silver?:
This could be a trick of the eye, or the limitations of the photograph. One would have to study them in person for better judgment. This is why I tend to support the judgment of the curators and art historians who have seen them under the magnifying glass, if not the microscope.

Re: The 14 + 8 theory

58
Ross Caldwell wrote: 28 May 2022, 15:42 I have no dog in this fight. The only ideas I care to defend are that the cards from the different artist are replacement cards, not an expansion from a smaller number, and the that the original deck containing all 22 of the standard trumps was entirely painted by Bonifacio Bembo.

Agreed.
Phaeded wrote: 28 May 2022, 15:16 More problems, going back to our older discussions here: Arms identification in Visconti-Sforza viewtopic.php?p=21761#p21761

If the primary color is silver on the right - oxidized to a dull gray as happens in all illuminations in manuscripts - then why are all of the smaller shields on the court cards a goldish hue, right next to dull gray oxidized silver, showing they are not silver?:
This could be a trick of the eye, or the limitations of the photograph. One would have to study them in person for better judgment. This is why I tend to support the judgment of the curators and art historians who have seen them under the magnifying glass, if not the microscope.
There's no denying the surrounding quatrefoil is silver and the shield is a different color, that much is clear. The camera may have altered the tones of the colors but would have done so equally - it didn't change just one object's color. If the authors didn't adequately address that its a huge hole in their argument for the identification of the stemma.

Do they address the ramifications of the king of sword's shield in any detail? Not sure why Sforza would have made that gesture for the likes of the Bon; just a historically weak argument, especially in light of the other known gifting of decks. And again, the stemma is placed on the knights suggesting a soldier like Colleoini, not artists like the Bon. The king of swords with St. Mark has to suggest their Captain-General - the fact it is a king also implies a dominion: Colleoni received one; the Bon did not.

The Bon did execute the most famous work of art for Doge Foscari (d. 1457), but would provide just another conduit (if the PMB went to Foscari) as to how the Bon would have ended up with them.

Image


The tie to Foscari was of course undeniable, even though in this lost stone relief (lost with the entire monastery, so a later drawing of it below) is naturally the arms of St. Mark and not Foscari, and literally linked to that of Sforza (oddly showing the imperial eagle - I guess the Venetians didn't give a shit about the Emperor's druthers and were in a conciliatory mood in regard to the wishes of Sforza to his claim to the imperial rescript). I suppose the Bon could have executed this, but that still doesn't rise them up to a level of Morosini, much less the Doge. Memorial plaque commemorating the Peace of Lodi at San Cristoforo della Pace, from Jan Grevenbroch, 'Varie venete curiosita sacre e profane.' Museo Civico Correr, MS Gradenigo-Dolfin 65/I, fig. 100. (plate 33 in Romano):
Image
The motto Quis separabit is derived from the Vulgate translation of Romans 8:35 ): ... "Quis ergō nōs sēparābit ā cāritāte Christī..." translated as "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?"


No way the entire deck was constructed with an eye to the Bon - not with this highest court card; Again, the ramification is this alludes to the Captain-General of Venice...ergo, either the Doge or his Captain-General:

Image

One final thought: Sforza must have visited the "island of peace" in a ceremony at some peace (and in fact the Venetians found Sforza a new palazzo in the city) - it is conceivable that the deck was designed for Colleoni or Foscari and then a copy gifted to the Bon in recognition of this prominent sculptural relief over the entrance into the monastery on the island, the senate approving the renaming to "della Pace" on 17 May 1454 (Romano, 261).
Last edited by Phaeded on 28 May 2022, 17:06, edited 1 time in total.

Re: The 14 + 8 theory

59
Phaeded wrote: 28 May 2022, 16:44
Ross Caldwell wrote: 28 May 2022, 15:42 I have no dog in this fight. The only ideas I care to defend are that the cards from the different artist are replacement cards, not an expansion from a smaller number, and the that the original deck containing all 22 of the standard trumps was entirely painted by Bonifacio Bembo.
Agreed.
Great - whew! We "constitutional originalists" have to stick together!
Do they address the ramifications of the king of sword's shield in any detail?
I haven't heard it. It is just obviously Venetian, which, in relation to the Bon stemma, tends to support that theory. I can't pretend to argue the case either way any better, since I haven't studied it thoroughly.

A weakness to Thierry's C' theory does occur to me, though: Fortitude is also replaced, and that is not part of the higher sequence. So it could be that those two Virtues were grouped in the A order as well.
The tie to Foscari was of course undeniable, even though in this lost stone relief (lost with the entire monastery, so a later drawing of it below) is naturally the arms of St. Mark and not Foscari, and literally linked to that of Sforza (oddly showing the imperial eagle - I guess the Venetians didn't give a shit about the Emperor's druthers and were in a conciliatory mood in regard to the wishes of Sforza to his claim to the imperial rescript). I suppose the Bon could have executed this, but that still doesn't rise them up to a level of Morosini, much less the Doge. Memorial plaque commemorating the Peace of Lodi at San Cristoforo della Pace, from Jan Grevenbroch, 'Varie venete curiosita sacre e profane.' Museo Civico Correr, MS Gradenigo-Dolfin 65/I, fig. 100. (plate 33 in Romano):
Image
Venetian-Milanese Pax.jpg

No way the entire deck was constructed with an eye to the Bon - not with this highest court card; Again, the ramification is this alludes to the Captain-General of Venice...ergo, either the Doge or his Captain-General:

Image
Interesting, thanks. But why do you keep saying that the King of Swords was the "highest" court card? As far as I know, the suits didn't have a ranking, with Swords highest.

Edited to add: I think I understand: you mean only that the King is the highest court card of a given suit, not that the King of Swords was the highest court card in the deck.

Re: The 14 + 8 theory

60
Ross Caldwell wrote: 28 May 2022, 17:03
Interesting, thanks. But why do you keep saying that the King of Swords was the "highest" court card? As far as I know, the suits didn't have a ranking, with Swords highest.


I suppose there's not a contemporary source for that but I just assumed the order in which the suits culminate in the swords (as in Dummett's book on the PMB; even the Sola Busca is always presented that way) was a traditional convention recognized by all.

I edited/added this to the above post so you missed it, but I'm conceding this possibility...

One final thought: Sforza must have visited the "island of peace" (St. Cristoforo della Pace) in a ceremony at some point (and in fact the Venetians found Sforza a new palazzo in the city, so he was there often enough) - it is conceivable that the deck was designed for Colleoni or Foscari and then a copy gifted to the Bon in recognition of this prominent sculptural relief on an exterior wall of the monastery "of peace" on the island, the senate approving the renaming to "della Pace" on 17 May 1454 (Romano, 261). Also consider Galeazzo Maria's ceremonial visit to Venice in 1455, who the Doge refers to in a letter to Sforza as "our son in common" :

Among the places he visited was the monastery of San Cristoforo, now renamed with the modifier of 'della Pace'. [goes on to describe the plaque shown above]...Several previous scholars who were unaware of the drawing wrongly concluded that the plaque linked Foscari and Sforza arms. Nevertheless, the incorporation of the lion of Saint Mark into the Foscari arms would have allowed for some confluence of the two; and certainly the reputations of the doge, Fra Simone, and the monastery itself were tied to the peace. (264)

Certainly no need to assume the surviving PMB is any way the "ur-PMB." In this scenario another's arms would have been adapted for the Bon, perhaps necessitating "scraping" of a drawing (if for Foscari) or easily overpainted if Colleoni/Bergamo....but perhaps they forgot to handle the smaller shields the same way as the ace of coin as the "presentation card" of the deck.

Whether the highest suit or not, I stand by the ramification that the king of Swords alludes to the Captain-General of Venice, and no way were the Bon the primary recipients (if they were at all) in terms of the creation of the PMB. No other tarot King of Swords is depicted that way. The shield matches that of the "della Pace" relief close enough - also a shield with the lion of St. Mark - to make that connection if made for Foscari (perhaps given in recognition of the promise that the venetians were finding him a replacement for the loss of his palazzo of the Two Towers, since razed). If the Doge could assume Sforza's son as his own, then Sforza could pretend to be the defender of Venice; Galeazzo's speech as a boy in his 1455 state visit included him saying Milan and Venice were not "two empires, two jurisdictions, or two republics, but rather one principality with two different names, one in spirit, mind and will, and also conjoined" (ibid, 263).

I still think an original creation for the cards soon after seizing Milan and then trying to retain Colleoni is possible with the open issue of the Captain-General of Venice in the background. A re-reading of the deck easily done when Sforza and Foscari were swearing oaths of fealty to one another, so now Sforza could pretend to be the protector of Venice, not striking a satirical pose from Milan (if before 1454). Of course with no early reference to the deck we'll never know either way. If not Colleoni, it has to be Foscari that the deck was originally intended.
St. Mark of della  Pace, Foscari and PMB.jpg St. Mark of della Pace, Foscari and PMB.jpg Viewed 3407 times 23.75 KiB
cron