Tarot History Forum

By recent research it became obvious (at least to me), that Petrarca's "Trionfi" poem likely had been of great importance for the start of the Trionfi cards in c. 1440.

So I looked up Arqua Petrarca at google maps (last important place in Petrarca's life). I was astonished to find out, that the distance Monselice (there lived Jacopo Antonio Marcello, who in more than one aspect might be a key figure in the documents about early Trionfi decks) to the Casa Petrarca in Arqua Petrarca is just 5 km, so just a Sunday walk or with horse even shorter.

https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Casa ... ra=ls&z=14

So Marcello should have felt some personal relation to Petrarca (an with that possibly to the new fashion "Trionfi decks").
Marcello entered the attention of playing card research as a "servant of Renee d'Anjou" (Kaplan I), nowadays we know, that he in 1449 had been an important provedittore for the Venetian army and in his later life he was near to becoming Doge in Venice, so one of the mightiest men in Italy. The title "servant" he got, cause he politely signed a letter to Isabella de Lorraine with "your servant" or similar.

Marcello was active in administrative roles and as sponsor of art. It's hardly imaginable, that he overlooked the new popularity of Petrarca, which favored the close neighborhood. However, Margaret L. King in her "The Death of the Child Valerio Marcello" has only peripheral notes to Petrarca, which can't be controlled by the online edition.
http://books.google.de/books?id=jLfnCvB ... ch&f=false


http://dobianchi.com/tag/arqua/

Google images offers pictures to "Arqua Casa del Petrarca" ...
https://www.google.com/search?q=casa+de ... 40&bih=788

.. but the fresci are from 1546, so of a later time.

Huck,
I was at Petrarch's house last year and Monselice the spring of this year (had not picked up King's book yet or otherwise would have hit Monselice the first time around). Regarding the latter, the primary significance of Monselice to Marcello would have been that it was a former bastion of the rulers of Padua, the Carraresi, although nearby Arqua certainly would have appealed to the humanist-backing Marcello. The castle at Monselice augmented by Marcello is amazining - strongly recommend both it and Arqua if you are ever in NE Italy (as well as nearby Padua of course).

What specifically struck me about Petrach's house, which is well preserved (although those paintings are irrrelevant - commisioned by a much later owner), is not so much the house itself but the westward view from Petrarch's study: The hills on the horizon call to mind the rounded hills at the bottom of the PMB cards. I would further posit that Sforza had those Euganean Hills (where Arqua is) in mind when commisioning those cards as he was at war with Venice and those hills represented a much older and agreesive Visconti boundary of Milan with Venice's terra firma holdings (i.e., the cards represented - in this detail - the ambitious propaganda that Sforza would not only retain Crema but push the Venetians all the way back to Padua, if not their lagoons). The photo I took from one of those west-facing windows of Petrarch's house:

Phaeded wrote:Huck,
I was at Petrarch's house last year and Monselice the spring of this year (had not picked up King's book yet or otherwise would have hit Monselice the first time around). Regarding the latter, the primary significance of Monselice to Marcello would have been that it was a former bastion of the rulers of Padua, the Carraresi, although nearby Arqua certainly would have appealed to the humanist-backing Marcello. The castle at Monselice augmented by Marcello is amazining - strongly recommend both it and Arqua if you are ever in NE Italy (as well as nearby Padua of course).

What specifically struck me about Petrach's house, which is well preserved (although those paintings are irrrelevant - commisioned by a much later owner), is not so much the house itself but the westward view from Petrarch's study: The hills on the horizon call to mind the rounded hills at the bottom of the PMB cards. I would further posit that Sforza had those Euganean Hills (where Arqua is) in mind when commisioning those cards as he was at war with Venice and those hills represented a much older and agreesive Visconti boundary of Milan with Venice's terra firma holdings (i.e., the cards represented - in this detail - the ambitious propaganda that Sforza would not only retain Crema but push the Venetians all the way back to Padua, if not their lagoons). The photo I took from one of those west-facing windows of Petrarch's house:

Welcome to the Forum,

My special interest is in the situation around 1440, and the raising popularity op Petrarca and specifically the popularity of the "Trionfi" poem just at this time, when "Trionfi" cards appeared as a new genre and also "Trionfi" poem motifs made their debut.
My logic dictates, that there should have been persons, who made this new popularity of Petrarca. Marcello might have been one of them. For the moment I don't know about the trivial information, when the Marcello family got the Monselice castle. King gives some information about it, but the online edition isn't complete.

Marcello became a hero, when some ships were transported over some mountains (1439) inside the war activities of Francesco Sforza. The appearance of some Venetian ships at a lake in the Alps caused a military success. In 1442 (peace times) Francesco Sforza got the special diplomat Marcello at his side. Then the plan existed, that Sforza should help Renee d'Anjou in Naples, a plan, which didn't realize quick enough, and Naples was taken by Alfonso d'Aragon.
But in February 1449 Marcello was introduced to Renee d'Anjou by Francesco Sforza ... the "fame" of Marcello was not great enough, that Sforza would assume, that Renee would know him already (although Marcello was involved in the earlier pro-Anjou help attempt.

For the increasing Petrarca engagement around 1440 we have the curious fact, that the the Florentine-Petrarca-Trionfi-enthusiasm (illustrated books) seems to have started by a contact between Piero de Medici and the artist Matteo de Pasti "in Venice" ... January 1441.
Petrarca had lived in Arqua and the Trionfi poem was not ready at his death (so it wasn't naturally already a famous work). Petrarca's library and his manuscripts had gone to Venice ... after his death.
Perhaps there was no reliable Trionfi poem text in Florence? Or only excerpts of some passages? Why else should Piero de Medici have searched help from Venice, if there were enough good artists in Florence? Or did Piero desire to know, if there had formed already an established Trionfi iconography formed?
In January 1441 it was expected, that the heavy wars between Venice and Milan (1438-40) had passed. Frlorence had been allied to Venice. So it was a good opportunity to do something "about triumphs". Piero de Medici had been in the special situation, that between the brothers Cosimo and Lorenzo de Medici the less known Lorenzo de Medici had engaged for culture, and Cosimo stayed in such business in the background.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenzo_il_Vecchio
This Lorenzo "il Vecchio" de Medici died in September 1440 (with only one son, who was "too young"; 10 years old). So Lorenzo had to be replaced and the job went to nephew Piero de Medici, son of Cosimo (and later to a not small part to Lucrezia Tornuabuoni, who married Piero de Medici in 1444; she engaged for literature), and Cosimo added to this engagement not only his interest for the Trionfi of Petrarca, but also his wedding to Lucrezia in 1444 (and in Florence it became standard to have wedding Cassone with Petrarca Trionfi motifs).
The famous Lorenzo de Medici, oldest son of Piero and Lucrezia, got then a birth picture with "Fame", painted by Lo Scheggia.

********

Well, I've no information, how Marcello fits in this scenario. I even don't know for sure, if Marcello already had Monselice early enough.

Your Flickr picture doesn't work; Flickr pictures generally don't work for Forums.

Perhaps there was no reliable Trionfi poem text in Florence? Or only excerpts of some passages? Why else should Piero de Medici have searched help from Venice, if there were enough good artists in Florence? Or did Piero desire to know, if there had formed already an established Trionfi iconography formed?

Hi Huck
As far as I can tell it goes like this.....
In 1437 Niccolo Niccoli's will was carried out and his manuscripts/books(library) went to The Center of Art,Music and Illumination that was the Monastery of Santa Maria degli Angeli in Florence. The General of that Monastery at that time was Saint Ambrose Traversari also known as Ambrose of Camaldoli, also a friend of Luigi Marsigli.
Niccolo Niccoli was the favourite student of Luigi Marsigli (of The Academy of Humanists) who was an Augustine and a friend and correspondant of the elderly Petrarch. He wrote commentaries on Petrarchs work and made public to the Humanists the letters between them. Niccolo Niccoli wrote them out in his famous script.
Luigi Marsigli was also connected to Francesco I da Carrara who gave the Estate of Arqua to Petrarch and to whom Petrarch gave his Library to (the Lords of Padua- the Carrara) Not all his works ended in Venice- I believe some somehow ended up in Milan due to the Carrara imprisonment/death at the hands of a Visconti. I cannot find formal written confirmation of that point.
Matteo de'Pasti was a miniaturist, sculpture and medalist who was associated with the Monastery Santa Maria degli Angeli when he wrote to Cosimo De Medici about the elephants for the Truimph of Fame in 1441. The reason he would have written to Cosimo De Medici is that as the Library was given by will to the Monastery and because Niccolo Niccoli had stipulated because of personal debt, the books be in the hands of a commission, expanded to include four leading citizens. So from 1437 Cosimo de Medici became the driving force behind the library at the Monastery.
(all Humanists together in their admiration and knowldge of Petrarch)
~Lorredan

hm ...
... as far I know, the letter of Matteo de Pasti was written to Piero de Medici, not to Cosimo.


... presented at viewtopic.php?f=11&t=858&hilit=matteo+pasti

The Trionfi poem was not ready at the death of Petrarca. Still in the hand of the author, one should assume, and possibly no other copy existed. Maybe copies were done later, but one knows, how it is with copies.
Piero de Medici might have desired to get a "copy as true as possible".

If Piero de Medici would have had a reliable copy, then it's a question, why Piero engaged a Venetian artist, which should have complicated the production.
I don't know, what the tale of Niccolo Niccoli would have to do with the matter. What sort of commentaries he wrote on Petrarca?

Tale?
The book I read was called 'History of Libraries Of The West' by Michael Harris.
He said Cosimo Piero Di Medici. So he meant Cosimo's first born Piero. I did not take that in.(about the letter)
Anyways.....
It is all about Niccolo Niccoli's Library as I said earlier.
It goes to Petrarch's desire to have Libraries and not manuscripts in the hands of a few.
It is also about the network of Religious men like The Augustines and Camaldolian etc.
The Library of Piero's father Cosimo was made up of the best of Niccolo Niccoli's books which included the Commentaries of Travasari on Petrarch's sonnets and letters written in the script we call 'Italic' by Niccolo Niccoli.
When Cosimo was exiled his library went to the Vatican.(1433?)
His son Piero started his own collection- more diverse, as it had a large collection of coins and medals.
Cosimo had paid the debts of Niccolo- so he took his best books and illuminations and with his own collection made three libraries of which by the time of Piero, many were still in the hands of the Papacy.
So I guess when that Plate with the Triumph was created Piero did not have access to the Petrarch information- it was with the Vatican and he sent to find the best in Venice or wherever.
So the Trionfi seem to be available in Cosimo's time and not in Pieros' That seems right because in 1453 Those tapestries of the Triumphs had cartoons sent to the weaver in Lille and 1456 the Virtues were ordered for the Medici. I do not know which Medici ordered the tapestries but Piero was a collector.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_de'_Niccoli
http://augnet.org/default.asp?ipageid=1265

~Lorredan

The 65 poems and several Trionfi plus a miniature of Fame dated 1445-50 held at the Vatican library are in part copies of the manuscript sent to Pandolfo Malatesta by Petrarch 1373 and explained in this brochure from Christies.
http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_ ... ID=5260192
So it would seem that the popularity of Trionfi in image was well established as they say independent of the Poemsby 1440. It is also interesting to note that scribes coping the works of Petrarch made mistakes, and works held by the Visconti in both image and word do not seem to be in the Vatican library.
This takes me back to the Malatesta request of Bianca Sforza nee Visconti for a deck. Did Malatesta see the Triumphs as relating to the Pandolfo Malatesta Manuscript of his family- it obviously was copied; how many times I do not know.
I do know that when Nicholas V (Tommaso Parentucelli)became Pope he had 200 manuscripts copied for Cosimo Medici's library in Fiesole- it was arranged before he became Pope, so before 1447.
The relationship between Tommaso and Cosimo was long, for when Tommaso was still a cardinal, and in needy circumstances, Cosimo made him considerable loans without demanding guarantees of payment. On the cardinal’s accession to Pope as Nicholas V. he was naturally very well disposed towards Cosimo, and employed the Medici bank in Rome in all the affairs of the curia, which brought immense profits to the house.(Catholic encyclopedia)
I guess Cosimo would have wanted his books/manuscripts back as well- maybe it was pay back time?
~Lorredan

hm ...

maybe it's not clear, but I was focused on the development of the Trionfi poem. Later developments are surely also of interest, but not for the early development.

The Christie's information of 1373 and Pandolfo Malatesta seem to relate to the Canzonieri.

In later arrangements of the collection, including the final version known from the partly autograph manuscript that Petrarch was modifying until the year of his death (Vatican City, BAV, Vat.Lat.3195), the verses were divided into two parts, those written during Laura's lifetime, 'in vita', and those after her death, 'in morte', the second part beginning with verse 264. This is the arrangement followed in the present manuscript, although the large illuminated initial allowed for on f.108v and intended to mark the opening of the second section was never supplied. The arrangement of the 'in vita' poems conforms to the ordering known as the 'forma malatesta' from the manuscript sent by Petrarch to Pandolfo Malatesta in 1373 (E.H. Wilkins, The Making of the Canzoniere and other Petrarchan Studies, 1951).

The categories "in vita" and "in morte" belong to the Canzonieri and NOT to the Trionfi, as far I understood it. I became later custom, that the Canzonieri and Trionfi were combined in one book. "In vita" likely belongs to poems "before April 1348" and "in morte" to poems "after April 1348" and in April 1348 happened the likely artificial death of Laura.

The letter of Matteo de Pasti (24th of January 1441) is assumed to be the first known indication of an illustrated Trionfi poem edition, commissioned by Piero de Medici. The interesting phenomenon is, that we've in September 1440 the (momentary) first note about Trionfi cards, and the close-in-time . appearance of both art productions let me assume a causal connection between both (both triggered by the popularity of the Trionfi poem, not the Canzonieri). Naturally the general popularity of Petrarca triggered the popularity of the Trionfi poem, but the question is "when".
The fame of the "Trionfi poem" likely didn't start, when the poet hadn't finished it. And it wasn't finished at his death time. So it was between Petrarca's many papers. Other writings of Petrarca were already famous and with some probability they found earlier some attention.
Bruni wrote a Petrarca biography in 1436, Giannozzo Manetti in c. 1441. Both are from Florence and from Florence we've now the earliest Trionfi card production date.
Other biographies of Petrarca are known from an earlier time than this, some are related to Florence. Padova (Carrara) is another place of Petrarca interests. Here worked Pier Paolo Vergerio the Elder ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pier_Paolo ... _the_Elder
... , who published Africa and his biography is praised between the others. He had access to the Carrara material till 1405, but he later went to Hungary. Sicco Polentone wrote 1433, but has kept details very short and is called of minor relevance.
All early biographies are called "not very intensive". Petrarca's fame as a scholar is (for the early biographies)' called greater than his fame as poet.
From this it's imaginable, that the Trionfi poem text appeared in the 1430s out of the nothing, known only by few.

Well, we research Trionfi cards, and the reasons for them to appear. We cannot overlook Manetti's Petrarca biography (c. 1440), Manetti's close relation to Bruni (Petrarca biography 1436), the Trionfi note of September 1440 and Matteo de Pasti's letter January 1441. Everything is close in time.
Naturally the generally book fair fever already in Ferrara 1438 and the book fair fever in Florence 1439 are of interest and it plays its role with all the import of Greek books from Constantinople. Bruni and also Manetti get their name as likely the most important translators from Greece to Latin in this early time. The library project in Florence already started 1437 after Niccolo de' Niccoli's death, that's true.
But for the Trionfi cards we likely have to look at the festivities in Florence 1439. Here was welcomed Pope Eugen at January 27th "in triumph", and Patriarch Joseph at February 11th (but he complained, that his welcome was less prestigious than that of the pope) and the welcome of the Greek Emperor at February 15th, again "in triumph". The praising oratio then was given by Leonardo Bruni, no wonder, he could speak the best Greek.
700 Greek guests in Florence with a lot of communication problems ... we should assume, that persons like Bruni and Manetti got a lot of importance by their translation abilities.

For the casa del Petrarca and its close distance to the castle in Monselice its of interest, if Marcello already had the castle and possibly was involved in the Petrarca fever.

It must be unusual that there is no Triumph of Fame illustration in this c. 1470 manuscript.

From Christie's -

The subjects of the illumination are as follows:

f.1 A miniature with Laura crowning Petrarch with the laurel wreath in an open loggia with a cityscape ?Avignon, in the background, and a roundel with Apollo and Daphne, in a full-page border inhabited by putti, animals, and birds and with a lover whose breast is pierced by an arrow shot by a young lady, a large foliate initial with an urn and two doves.
f.150v The Triumph of Love, with a cart carrying blind cupid drawn by four white horses, the accompanying procession including King David and Hercules on the left and with Caesar among the classical figures on the right; in the foreground Samson and Delilah and Phyllis and Aristotle. f.167 The Triumph of Death, with a cart carrying a skeletal figure holding a scythe drawn by two oxen who overrun two young men, a cardinal, a king, a pope and an emperor, within a circular border with flowers.
f.184v The Triumph of Time, with a cart carrying a winged man bearing an astrolabe drawn by two stags flanked by prophets and elders, with a quadrilobe frame with foliate terminals.
f.187v The Triumph of Eternity (Divinity), with God the Father seated on a green globe and in a mandorla edged with seraphim, flanked by Saints led by Peter and Paul, within a wreath tied by four winged putti against a golden ground.

Possibly it was cut out by a previous owner, but over half a million dollars is a lot to pay for a mutilated manuscript.

Otherwise very nice, and a northern one, not Florentine.


http://www.rosscaldwell.com/images/book ... fi1470.jpg

PROVENANCE:

The opening folio has a shield with the Visconti coat of arms encircled by the name IVLLIVS VICECOMES. Although they were not supplied by the illuminator of the border, these arms and the family name are likely to have been those of the first owner. Another copy of the Canzoniere and Trionfi with an opening leaf illuminated by the same artist and with a similar miniature (Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, Cod. 903: see G. Petrella, Il fondo Petrarchesco della Biblioteca Trivulziana: manoscritti ed edizioni a stampa (sec.xiv-xx), 2006, pp.33-38) has a roundel of exactly the same format where the Visconti arms are encircled with 'Franciscus Vicecomes'. Of the family members of this name the most likely to have been the original owner is the son of Giambattista Visconti, senator to the duke of Milan, and his wife Regola Galeazzi. Francesco was himself named Consiglio segreto in 1466 and was a correspondent of the humanist Pier Candido Decembrio, who dedicated two works to him: C. Santoro, I codici medioevali della Biblioteca Trivulziana, 1965, p.229. In the present manuscript, whereas the arms and family name are original, it is clear that the Ivllivs is a later modification. It seems probable that it was originally illuminated for one of Francesco's close relatives, he had a brother Guido (Conte Pompeo Litta, Famiglie celebri italiane, Visconti di Milano, tav.XVI) or another Visconti at the ducal court from whom it passed by descent to a Giulio. One such was Giampetro, ducal counsellor in 1477 and ancestor of the Giulio who graduated from Pavia university in 1604 (Litta, Visconti di Milano, tav.XIII). The Visconti were likely to have regarded themselves as having a particularly close association with Petrarch for the poet was for many years the friend and protégé of successive Visconti lords of Milan.

It seems to have not a Chastity, too.

... hm, Chastity and Fame are both female figures.

It's interesting, that the 4 pictures have all a different frame.