Tarot History Forum - 600 years of history in 78 cards
https://forum.tarothistory.com/
What I have found is that Cosimo had 63 books in his 1418 inventory. This was published from the manuscript for the first time in 1902, by Fortunato Pintor, in a brief pamphlet titled "La libreria di Cosimo de' Medici nel 1418". It is on the web at Internet Archive -Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote:"Cosimo De medici had his own copy of The Trionfi by 1418."
"...Cosimo acquired his copy in 1418."
Do I have to take your word for it, or would either or you, Lorredan or Phaeded, care to provide documentation of this assertion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Martin_VPope "Martin left Constance at the close of the council (May 1418), but travelled slowly through Italy and lingered at Florence."
The letter was published by Milanesi Lettere d’artisti 78-9 and republished by Ames Lewis,Matteo de’Pasti
The letter addressed to Piero in 1441, concerning the young man’s personal commission of a representation of Petrarch’s Triumphs, is perhaps the most straightforward of Artist’s letters to the Medici.
The text and the theme on which the work was based was close to the Patron’s heart; the work itself has been identified by Ames-Lewis as the first important manuscript commissioned by Piero for his magnificent collection. Matteo’s letter from Venice is brief and to the point, announcing that “since I have been in Venice I have learned something that could not be more appropriate for your work” This proved to be a new technique for painting on ground gold “like any other colour, and with it I have started to enrich it, so that you have never seen the like” Describing enthusiastically in detail what he had already done with “the ladies” in the Triumph, presumably of Love, he begged Piero “urgently to send me your notion of the others, so I can visualise them, and if you like, I will send you these” he apparently enclosed a sketch with the request to Piero to “complete it as you wish, and if you like it, send me word to do the other one of Fame, for I have the concept, except that I don’t know whether you want the seated woman in a short gown or in a mantle, as I would like.” He particularly called upon Piero “to let me have something to see” This letter is clear testimony to the liveliness and precision of the verbal and visual exchange between Patron and artist over the application of materials and techniques recommended by the latter, concerning the subject matter, chosen by the patron, but well known to the Artist, who had his own ideas about it. As Matteo continued of the Triumph of Fame “For the rest I know all that is to go into it, that is, the chariot drawn by four Elephants” The issue in question was Piero’s personal preference concerning whether the ancillary figures following should be “shield bearers and girls, or famous men of the past” obviously a choice between the previous model for the representation of the Triumphs known to the Patron and the artist. While the artist also apologised for something he had done, or not done, the main points which emerge from Matteo’s letter are that he is enthusiastic about the commission and his technical discovery, eager to please his patron in every last detail of a project were details mattered, and confident in his ability to produce “something you never saw in the world before”
Taken from Petrarchs works/biography and translated by various? With the life of the Poet by Thomas Campbell 1869.Pandolfo Malatesta, learning what was passing in the Paduan territory, and the danger to which Petrarch was exposed, sent to offer him his horses, and an escort to conduct him to Pesaro, which was at that time his residence. He was Lord of Pesaro and Fossombrone. The envoy of Pandolfo found our poet at Padua, and used every argument to second his Lord's invitation; but Petrarch excused himself on account of the state of his health, the insecurity of the highways, and the severity of the weather. Besides, he said that it would be disgraceful to him to leave Padua in the present circumstances, and that it would expose him to the suspicion of cowardice, which he never deserved.
Pandolfo earnestly solicited from Petrarch a copy of his Italian works. Our poet in answer says to him, "I have sent to you by your messenger these trifles which were the amusement of my youth. They have need of all your indulgence. It is shameful for an old man to send you things of this nature; but you have earnestly asked for them, and can I refuse you anything? With what grace could I deny you verses which are current in the streets, and are in the mouth of all the world, who prefer them to the more solid compositions that I have produced in my riper years?" This letter is dated at Padua, on the 4th of January, 1373. Pandolfo Malatesta died a short time after receiving it.
I have just read A. D. Fraser-Jenkins, "Cosimo de' Medici's Patronage of Architecture and the Theory of Magnificence" (Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 33 (1970), pp. 162-170) twice, and I cannot find a single piece of any of the above information in it. Unless my eyes are far worse than I thought - or my mind - this reference says nothing on the subject of Cosimo's manuscripts, illuminated or otherwise.Lorredan wrote:I have found it Huck.
Cosimo De medici had his own copy of The Trionfi by 1418. A splendidly illuminated humanist edition of the text was his son Piero's first commission for an expensive manuscript, and the other son Giovanni used his Father's copy when he went to his villa at Fiesole. (which I read about when at Fiesole and saw 3 copies of the 12 line Triumphs by different hands apparently as letters from Petrarch to his friends) So, it was just like Petrarch's other fragments or trifles- his sonnets- he sent them out peicemeal to his friends. Some people must have received complete sets- because Cosimo had one.(Like Pandolfo Malatesta)
Anyways...as to the letter from Matteo de'Pasti- he was gilding a an image of the Triumphs for Piero(1440/41) and he was checking up on the 1418 version; and later in 1449 Fame was chosen for a 'desco de parto' for the birth of Cosimo's Grandson Lorenzo.
So the letter that Ross quoted is about Piero de Medici's first commission for a manuscript- illuminated or at least gilded by Matteo de Pasti.
~Lorredan
Information comes from Fraser-Jenkins 'Patronage of Architecture andTheory of Magnificence.'
Where is that quote from? It says nothing about a 1418 manuscript being the basis for the 1441 one, in any case.Lorredan wrote:Well first things first…..Matteo de’Pasti
The letter addressed to Piero in 1441, concerning the young man’s personal commission of a representation of Petrarch’s Triumphs, is perhaps the most straightforward of Artist’s letters to the Medici.
The text and the theme on which the work was based was close to the Patron’s heart; the work itself has been identified by Ames-Lewis as the first important manuscript commissioned by Piero for his magnificent collection. Matteo’s letter from Venice is brief and to the point, announcing that “since I have been in Venice I have learned something that could not be more appropriate for your work” This proved to be a new technique for painting on ground gold “like any other colour, and with it I have started to enrich it, so that you have never seen the like” Describing enthusiastically in detail what he had already done with “the ladies” in the Triumph, presumably of Love, he begged Piero “urgently to send me your notion of the others, so I can visualise them, and if you like, I will send you these” he apparently enclosed a sketch with the request to Piero to “complete it as you wish, and if you like it, send me word to do the other one of Fame, for I have the concept, except that I don’t know whether you want the seated woman in a short gown or in a mantle, as I would like.” He particularly called upon Piero “to let me have something to see” This letter is clear testimony to the liveliness and precision of the verbal and visual exchange between Patron and artist over the application of materials and techniques recommended by the latter, concerning the subject matter, chosen by the patron, but well known to the Artist, who had his own ideas about it. As Matteo continued of the Triumph of Fame “For the rest I know all that is to go into it, that is, the chariot drawn by four Elephants” The issue in question was Piero’s personal preference concerning whether the ancillary figures following should be “shield bearers and girls, or famous men of the past” obviously a choice between the previous model for the representation of the Triumphs known to the Patron and the artist. While the artist also apologised for something he had done, or not done, the main points which emerge from Matteo’s letter are that he is enthusiastic about the commission and his technical discovery, eager to please his patron in every last detail of a project were details mattered, and confident in his ability to produce “something you never saw in the world before”
I have also posted the first, Gaetano Milanesi, publication of the letter in 1869 (although without translation), in the Forum, here -The letter was published by Milanesi Lettere d’artisti 78-9 and republished by Ames Lewis,
it appears in translation and with comment by Gilbert, Italian Art 6.
~Lorredan
We get pictures with google images, searching for "Casa del Petrarca", "Arqua" etc. and we can walk through Arqua on the search for Casa del Petrrarca (but I find only a wall with trees behind).Phaeded wrote:Huck,
Belated reply (was away for the recent American holiday).
As for the photo of the Euganean Hills from Petrarch’s house in Arqua that wouldn’t load from Flickr– here’s someone else’s photo showing the same, but presumably from the garden (too bad as my photo included the long window frame so the image more properly aped the dimensions of a PMB trump card with the similar mountains on the horizon at the bottom – compare “the Star” for instance):
Thanks for this date, which I searched (King's online edition missed it). The decision to buy Monselice castle, likely didn't happen at one day., so one cannot think of precise dates. Marcello was useful in the war, which took a pause in autumn 1440, likely he got some income through it, and it was possible, that he could buy it. He got the job to care for the connection to Francesco Sforza in 1442. But perhaps Monselice had some function in the plans of Venice, how to care for Sforza, if it would have been necessary that he stayed at Venice territory. Monselice is near to Ferrara and near to Mantova, both had been in the war before not solid in their political decisions. A part of the Sforza army in this region would have given, that, Ferrara and Mantova in future would have been careful, if they should tun against Venice. Niccolo d'Este died end of 1441, did one know, how Leonello would behave in the future?As for your focus on 1440 (mine as well since the Giusto diary reference came to light – I’ve been lurking about this webpage for some time and have been enjoying the fruits of yours and everyone else’s research), I’m not sure how Petrarch’s Trionfi matters in terms of being a template for the earliest trionfi cards, not the least of which is that a series of 6 does not follow any known tarot deck series or subset thereof. Your comment - “My logic dictates, that there should have been persons, who made this new popularity of Petrarca. Marcello might have been one of them” – misses in both time and place: Marcello was in the East of Italy, not Florence, and the first mention of him in association with Monselice is in 1441 (King, 1994: 61).
Thanks, you know the situation quite well, and even the newest developments are not foreign to you. You are a careful reader.Like the production of Petrarchan-related works of art, this comes right after the earliest known deck of 1440 but one could still posit that the Anghiari triumphal celebrations (or earlier Council of Florence as you would have it) and perhaps related trionfi deck paid for by Giusto inspired the subsequent Petrarchan works. However the very fact that Piero de Medici had to commission a Venetian artist (Matteo de Pasti) in 1441 - while Giusto specifically mentions commissioning his deck in Florence - militates against the idea that Petrarch’s Trionfi were in any way a common production in Florence before 1440 (and there is nothing to suggest anything happened in the intervening period from the time Cosimo acquired his copy in 1418). The auction house listing for one of those works clearly illuminates why Florence became interested in Petrach: “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.” After the 1440 defeat of the Visconti-backed Albizzi exiles at Anghiari it became a point of civic pride to reclaim one of the “three crowns” for the Medici regime (that influential Florence helped spread the fashion for Petrarch in the Quattrocentro to other cities is unsurprising but still not relative to the earliest 1440 deck).
Likely Carlo Fortebraccio, condottiero, son of Braccio, the earlier great condottiero opposed to Muzio Attendola. I don't get the passage from the online edition. Do you have details about this passage?Finally, to get back to your original point, Marcello, despite the large corpus of literary and artistic works commissioned and gifted to him, only had one work associated with him that is (very loosely) connected to Petrach’s Trionfi. But this is a literary gift from a Fortebraccio celebrating Marcello’s deeds and merely alludes to his life’s achievements as a series of “triumphs” a’la Petrarch and dates from after 1458 (King, 1994: 51).
