Cristina Fiorini

Huck

Sorry, I did read too hasty.

But she seems to have come to the same conclusion: Giovanni del Ponte was the artist of the Rothschild cards. Is this correct?

.. and the major argument is a Florentian coin - datable to a specific time?

Ross G Caldwell

Huck said:
Sorry, I did read too hasty.

But she seems to have come to the same conclusion: Giovanni del Ponte was the artist of the Rothschild cards. Is this correct?

.. and the major argument is a Florentian coin - datable to a specific time?

I'm not sure Fiorini is convinced of the attribution to Giovanni del Ponte. In her article she says "Whether the series can be definitively attributed to Giovanni or not, what counts, for the moment, is to have circumscribed with great exactitude the probable area of the cards' provenance. Other indications seem to lead back to a Florentine context."

She notes three of these - the coin, the double-domed shield of the Knight of Swords (never noted as a significant detail before, as far as I know), and a comparison with the Rosenwald sheet (the same method I used with the Charles VI).

The gold florin isn't datable, I think, but it was the decisive factor for me to accept that the cards are from Florence.

The double-domed shield, Fiorini argues, is only ever used by one Italian artist, who had studied in Spain - Gherardo Starnina (c. 1360-1413). The power of this argument is that Starnina was Giovanni's principal teacher (according to Fiorini).

For the Rosenwald comparison, she notes particularly the trefoil tracery in the corners of many of the trumps, which match those in the Rothschild cards, arguing for a common tradition and area of origin for the designs.

Comparing these with other sets, she notes similarities among the Rothschild, Charles VI, Castello Ursino, and Este cards, recalling that Dummett also noted them in 1993: chiefly, the clear lines, and the tendency of the image to project outside the frame of the card. My own observations: the Emperor's crown is also identical in both the Charles VI and Rothschild, and look closely at the style of the hands and fingers as well, in the Rothschild, Charles VI, and Catania. Finally, compare their borders - identical. I personally have no doubt that these three sets are the "Florentine style" (Este is a distinct style, I'm hesitant to say the same school, but it is also presumably a few decades later (1470s) so perhaps that could account for the differences).

The point of excitement here is that in 15 years (Pratesi to Fiorini), Florence has gone from having nothing, to having a central place in the early diffusion of tarot.

She doesn't mention the Imperatori interpretation. Whether or not she ever thought of it, the nature of the game is speculative at best, and the best interpretation is that it is a German style deck (whatever that would be at the time, and Emperor=German (in the widest sense)), and we know there were a lot of German cardmakers in the area in the early 1400s. The idea that it had extra Emperor cards is not one that is likely to gain much assent, especially as the Rothschild is clearly Latin-suited (i.e. tarot), and matches the style of the Rosenwald sheet tarot.

Ross

Huck

Ross G Caldwell said:
I'm not sure Fiorini is convinced of the attribution to Giovanni del Ponte. In her article she says "Whether the series can be definitively attributed to Giovanni or not, what counts, for the moment, is to have circumscribed with great exactitude the probable area of the cards' provenance. Other indications seem to lead back to a Florentine context."

She notes three of these - the coin, the double-domed shield of the Knight of Swords (never noted as a significant detail before, as far as I know), and a comparison with the Rosenwald sheet (the same method I used with the Charles VI).

For the coin - that seems a valid argument. The shield - wasn't it mentioned by Ortalli?
The Rosenwald sheet ... well, there are writing errors in the sheet. But it's said, that Stuttgart-Leinfelden has another print of the same sheet.

"It is apparent that this sheet was stenciled incorrectly because anothersheet from the same stencil at the Deutsches Spielkarten Museum in Leinfelden contains the images with the correct rendition of Roman numerals." Kaplan I, p. 130 - 131.

Do we know the numbering of the "correct sheet"?

But, wait, this is REALLY IMPORTANT ... what is about this said by Fiorini:

"Some writers have questioned wether the 23 numeral cards, whose measurements Detlev Hoffmann gives as 186 x 93 mm, belong with the other 8 Rothschild cards, which measure 185 x 90 mm, according to Hoffmann, and it is true, that their borders do not have the wavy lines found on the court cards and the Emperor." - a Dummett representation.

The gold florin isn't datable, I think, but it was the decisive factor for me to accept that the cards are from Florence.

The double-domed shield, Fiorini argues, is only ever used by one Italian artist, who had studied in Spain - Gherardo Starnina (c. 1360-1413). The power of this argument is that Starnina was Giovanni's principal teacher (according to Fiorini).

Interesting. Really interesting.

For the Rosenwald comparison, she notes particularly the trefoil tracery in the corners of many of the trumps, which match those in the Rothschild cards, arguing for a common tradition and area of origin for the designs.

Comparing these with other sets, she notes similarities among the Rothschild, Charles VI, Castello Ursino, and Este cards, recalling that Dummett also noted them in 1993: chiefly, the clear lines, and the tendency of the image to project outside the frame of the card. My own observations: the Emperor's crown is also identical in both the Charles VI and Rothschild, and look closely at the style of the hands and fingers as well, in the Rothschild, Charles VI, and Catania. Finally, compare their borders - identical. I personally have no doubt that these three sets are the "Florentine style" (Este is a distinct style, I'm hesitant to say the same school, but it is also presumably a few decades later (1470s) so perhaps that could account for the differences).

I have to think about this.

The point of excitement here is that in 15 years (Pratesi to Fiorini), Florence has gone from having nothing, to having a central place in the early diffusion of tarot.

She doesn't mention the Imperatori interpretation. Whether or not she ever thought of it, the nature of the game is speculative at best, and the best interpretation is that it is a German style deck (whatever that would be at the time, and Emperor=German (in the widest sense)), and we know there were a lot of German cardmakers in the area in the early 1400s. The idea that it had extra Emperor cards is not one that is likely to gain much assent, especially as the Rothschild is clearly Latin-suited (i.e. tarot), and matches the style of the Rosenwald sheet tarot.

Ross

When the Emperor-game/Imperatori/Karnöffel-game entered Italy after the Council of Constance, it's known, which Florentines were at the council.

For instance: Cosimo de Medici.
Especially also, rather long time in Germany, Pope Johannes XXIII.

We have no example of German Imperatori or Karnöffel cards. It might well be, that it was simply an Italian development to form "extra cards", a special "trump suit". Perhaps a much "too expensive way" for the usual German player.

We can see a general German play with the court cards beside the Kings (which would be 8 in number in a usual 52-cards-game as in "VIII Imperatori" cards).
But for the late Karnöffel descriptions we have, that the trumps were given to the number cards - perhaps following the general rule, that "trumps should be low cards".

But I have to think about this.

Huck

My own observations: the Emperor's crown is also identical in both the Charles VI and Rothschild, and look closely at the style of the hands and fingers as well, in the Rothschild, Charles VI, and Catania.

This looks like a rather good argument. I've tried to find another "real" Emperor crown, which looks similar, not really successful, but this looks a little bit as the Rothschild crown:

named "Kaiser Sigismund in Hermannstadt" in an Internet document.

The context is really interesting:

"Every year from 1423 to 1426 Pipo ["Pipo of Ozora (Filippo Scholari)," who was count of Temes - in the book Timis] and Csaki marched to Wallachia to support Dan against Radu and his Turkish allies. In the end Sigismund himself intervened. He went to Brassó [in the book Brasov] in December 1426, and for several months directed the military operations in person. His army - of which, curiously enough, one of the commanders was Prince Peter of Portugal - won a decisive winter victory over Radu's troops. Dan's position was thereby stabilized, so that in April 1427 he was able to receive Sigismund in his own residence in Hosszúmezo [in the book Campulung; town in Wallachia]. The relative calm lasted for five years."

http://hungaria.org/hir.php?topicid=552&messageid=569

This was more or less a crusader-action, and likely a good figure for the taste of the whole council in Florence 1439, which organised energies to have a new crusade in the same region 1443-1444 with Cesarini, an important cardinal at the council, who lost his life in the enterprize. It might well be, that a Sigismono-as-crusader-picture was popular then and formed a taste, which impressed later generations of card-painters (Sigismondo had died in the moment, when the council had started in Ferrara; they had an empty throne installed for him; it was really the right moment to make an idol of him). Perhaps the big sign at the front of the crown should be interpreted as cross.

Unluckily the page gives no location or time for the picture. But it's a page about Hermannstadt, so likely it's a picture in Hermannstadt (nowadays in Romania). Perhaps in a church.

Let's rethink this:

The Emperor was in Italy - nearly 2 years. Late 1431 till autumn 1433. In Florence was a printing press (1430). The pictures of the Rothschild are made by using partly printing technique - so said Ortalli.

The (later) Minchiate had the astonishing feature of including an Eastern and Western Emperor - actually this should have been an idea, which they got in a time, when the Eastern Emperor really existed - till 1453.

The name of the game "Imperatori" expresses a plural, at least two Emperors. Eastern + Western Emperor = 2 Emporers.

Imperatori cards were existent in 1423, after the council. The interest to organize a crusade was already given, actually Sigismondo made his crusade against the Hussites. In 1423 Constantinople was in concrete danger.

Karnöffel knows a Pope, an Emperor and a Devil. The Osmans were seen as a dragon and the dragon as the devil. Finally Karnöffel has 4 Emperors ... also a plural.

Perhaps is the Giovanni del Ponte idea not bad. But only for the Imperatori-deck.

The Charles VI deck might be a later reference to the earlier Imperatori cards. Imperatori cards disappear in Italy 1452 - 1454.

1453 we have the fall of Constantinople.

DoctorArcanus

Ross G Caldwell said:
The point of excitement here is that in 15 years (Pratesi to Fiorini), Florence has gone from having nothing, to having a central place in the early diffusion of tarot.

Thank you Ross, this is exciting indeed!!!

I would like to learn more of Giovanni Del Ponte (Giovanni Di Marco).
I guess the artist Vasari speaks of has the same name but he is not our Giovanni (this one lived in the XIV Century).

I also would like to see images of works by Giovanni Del Ponte and color images of the Rothschild cards. Does anybody know which images are available on the internet?

Marco

Huck

These are the objects, that Ross is refering to:

Emperor crown Rothschild cards

Emperor crown Charles VI. cards

Which indeed are "similar" to each other.
It's recognizable, that the lower border has only few leaves and that the crown has a high top.

With this characterization we find crowns of Emperor Sigismund, a little different ("freedom of art"), but at least a little similar.

Origin not clear
From Sigismund exhibition
http://peregrinations.kenyon.edu/vol2-1/exhibitions.html

Ulrich von Richental. Konzil von Konstanz
given at the page as "from ca 1470", but I've seen at other place, that this work was given to ca. 1430. Others give it to ca. 1420.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich_von_Richental
Ulrich was dead 1437 (so 1470 is impossible). It's clear, that he saw the council.

There are various representations with "Sigismund with crown", not all crowns look "similar" to the Rothschild-card crown, but some.

http://aeiou.iicm.tugraz.at/aeiou.history.id_ko.i21.i1

*******

From this it seems, that Sigismund variously appeared with a crown "roughly similar" to the Rothschild cards Emperor's Crown at the council of Constance.

Florentians of the year 1423 (date of the Florentian Imperatori cards), which visited the council, would have known this crown.

Just for reference: this seems to be the representation von Hermannstadt (again)

only few leaves at the lower border, but the top is a cross usuzally ... perhaps the same crown was variated later, or the Florentine painter had a disturbed memory or worked by a description of somebody else.

********
especially to Marco:

Giovanni del Ponte lived ......
http://trionfi.com/0/c/40/

Huck

That's the coat of Arms of Bohemia. The presented crown has few leaves only and the top is a cross.

I guess, that's our real object.

The Hungarian crown (Sigismund was king of Hungary first) is totally different:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_of_St._Stephen

The German Empire crown (Sigismund was NOT Emperor at the council)

... totally different.

******
And here the picture turns clear

http://www.viewimages.com/Search.aspx?mid=51244915&epmid=1&partner=Google

King Wenzel crown ... without cross, but with another top, in the council's time still living in concurrence to Sigismund. So Sigismund's crown (with cross) should be a counter-crown against Wenzel.

The older Bohemian crown (ca. 1300) had few leaves, but no top:

http://www.viewimages.com/Search.aspx?mid=51244404&epmid=1&partner=Google

as far we can rely on these pictures, which surely are made long after the time.

The actual German history was this:

1378: Emperor Charles IV (also King of Bohemia) died.
1378: His son Wenzel follows him as German King and King of Bohemia.
1400: King Wenzel is abdicted - as emperor.
1400: King Ruprecht reigns from 1400 - 1410. He dies.
1410-1411, Jobst of Maehren. He dies.

1411: Sigismund, King of Hungary and brother of Wenzel, becomes German King ... actually he's now the fourth King of the same generation.

and here a side-view on the rules of Karnöffel, also called Kaiser-game or Imperatori.
There are 4 Kaiser (or could-be-Kaiser), which overrule each other, in the game these are the trump-2, the trump-3, the trump-4 and trump-5. Additionally there are the Pope (trump-6) and the devil (trump-7) and the Karnöffel, who beats them all.

... back to history. Sigismund is in conflict with Wenzel, still king of Bohemia. The conflict between them is obvious in the person of Johann Hus, who is invited from Bohemia, promised "diplomatic status" and against the promises burnt at the stake in 1415. Beside the abdiction of three popes this is the most central story of the council of Constance.

1378: Emperor Charles VI died
1378: The Schisma of the church started

1415 (in the intention of the council): the "good king" Sigismund replaces the "wrong king" King Wenzel - also in Bohemia.
1415 (in the intention of the council): The Schisma is overcome.

This was the historical hope of the council and the political intention of the time. King Wenzel agreed, but the Bohemians disagreed and this disagreement endured many decades with various steps of peace and war.

Specifically Wenzel, who had tried to play the role of German king again in 1410, had agreed in 1411 to Sigismund, who had promised to make him Emperor (never realised). Wenzel kept the title of the German king, though this was a meaningless name.
Sigismund himself had the promise from Wenzel to become heir of Bohemia.
During the council Wenzel was protected by Sigismund against his aggressors.
But Wenzel himself was urged by his brother to work against the rebellish Bohemians. When the conflict was strengthened in 1419, he died.

Sigismund became then the king of Bohemia, but it took long time before he was accepted in Bohemia.

Nonetheless: the relevant crown seems to be that of Bohemia or a variation of it ... perhaps his role as exspected heir of Bohemia also was related to a specific crown already at the council.

One has to see, that the crown of Bohemia was in Sigismunds time long connected to the Empire crown ... (since 1307) so it had possibly a crucial "symbolic role" in the mind of the time. As theme of the council Bohemia (Jan Hus) was generally focussed.

***

Btw. The Polish crown (which seems to have changed often) has similarties to the Bohemian crown (once Poland and Bohemia were united for a short while)

A 14th century crown had also few great leaves , but no top. It was found fond in 19th century in the burial place, so it's the true crown:

DoctorArcanus

St.George?

I am getting lost. I think I read in this thread that Cristina Fiorini (or other researchers on whose work her attribution is based) noted a similarity between the Rothschild Knight of Batons and the St. George by Giovanni Del Ponte. Am I correct? I cannot find the reference any more

Marco

Huck

DoctorArcanus said:
I am getting lost. I think I read in this thread that Cristina Fiorini (or other researchers on whose work her attribution is based) noted a similarity between the Rothschild Knight of Batons and the St. George by Giovanni Del Ponte. Am I correct? I cannot find the reference any more

Marco

...

... again: http://trionfi.com/0/c/40/

DoctorArcanus

Thank you, Huck: I was actually thinking of the Trionfi.com page you pointed out.
From Kaplan, I had the impression that the Knight that can best be compared to a St.George is the Knight of Batons, not the Knight of Swords (I think Kaplan explicitly writes so). It there an image of the Knight of Batons somewhere on the internet?

Marco