Cristina Fiorini


> Tarot Forum > Tarot Special Interest > Tarot History & Development



 
Huck  Huck is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 02 Jul 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,682
Huck 
Cristina Fiorini


Ross wrote in the other thread

http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=90572&page=2

Quote:
"In addition, the consensus is changing on the dating and provenance of the so-called Charles VI pack, and its sister pack in Catania. Comparisons of the designs with the Rosenwald sheets, from Florence (or nearby in Tuscany), as well as the numbering later placed on them, indicate a Florentine provenance (Done by Caldwell and Depaulis, 2005). Independently, Cristina Fiorini concluded from an art historical perspective that the cards are Florentine, and date to around 1450."
Cristina Fiorini was unknown to me and I checked the web

http://www.fbsr.it/eng/pagine.php?s=&pg=280

The "Giovanni di Marco" inside the text seems identical to "Giovanni del Ponte".

The "Giovanni del Ponte" thesis was brought to our group in 2003 by Raimondo Luberti.

It became a source to the following articles:

http://trionfi.com/0/c/40/
... and follow the links.

***

Just commenting it now in context to the above quotation:

We've for 1423 the import of 8 Imperatori cards "from Florence to Ferrara".
The only trump, which could be identified inside the remaining Rothschild cards (Kaplan I, p. 120 - 122; Cristina Fiorini seem to relate to this deck fragment) is the Emperor - and the Pope is doubted (accepted by Kaplan, attacked by Dummett; see the Trionfi.com articles).

There is no confirmation, that this are "Trionfi cards", but the deck might be interesting to identify the object "Imperatori cards".

Generally to the early development in Florence:

Florence had a high potential o artists, but the development of card production inside the city seems to have been handicapped by strong prohibition before 1450. This might have been occurred especially according to the close relation between Floence and Pope Eugen since 1434 - Pope Eugen had a close relation to the Franciscans (San Bernardino, St. Capistran, card deck hunters).

Although the region of Florence was closely researched by Franco Pratesi ...

http://trionfi.com/0/p/05/

... he found a lot of prohibition details (so much, that he documented them - unluckily - perhaps not careful enough) .... , he could only testify one card producer in 1430 (in comparition to another research situation: Nurremberg had in 15th century at least 38 named card producers, and 8 of them "before 1450")

http://trionfi.com/0/p/20/


"1430" is before "1434 (the "pope Eugen - Florence - relation" with its negative influence on card playing freedom, also its before the "reign of Cosimo" (which also started 1434), so we have to judge this earlier time as different from the following time.

Trionfi cards appear in Florence for the first time in 1450 in an allowance of specific card games (or ways to play cards, the identification of what really was allowed is difficult). This "sudden" allowance appeared after a longer period of stronger prohibition, which started with the "general success of Eugen" (Eugen was a very disputed pope and his success period started ca. 1443).

Eugen died 1447, and his successor Nikolaus was a very different type of man, with much more tolerance for humanistic interests. But an immediate turn in matters of "playing card tolerance" was difficult cause the current war Venice-Milan, which endured till the autumn 1449.

Sforza was engaged in this war and Venice had made him hope, that he was helped to reach his aim. Short before he could realise this result, Venice made peace with Milan and Sforza was urged to agree in this cheated game.

This was the moment, when our protagonist, Jacopo Antonia Marcello, a mighty provveditore in the Venetian army, left the battlefield of Milan and wrote his letter and did send the Michelino deck to Rene d'Anjou. This was in November 1449.
People were happy in Milan and they organized a "Trionfo for peace" with allegorical figures (no reports about playing card production).

At Christmas 1449, soon after it, Sforza made obvious, that he attacked Milan by enclosure, closing all connections for traffic to the city. Milan was not prepared, having invested its corn for the seed of the next year, and Venice was surprized. The Milanese population started to hunger, the Venetian army had difficulties to approach Milan for help in quick time.

The political position of Florence was PRO-Sforza.

It took two monthes for Sforza to succeed. It's said, that 5000 persons died cause of hunger in the meantime. End of February 1450 Sforza succeeded.

The news reached Florence and Ferrara (and naturally all other cities).

Florence (PRO-Sforza) naturally was happy. But: the allowance for card playing Trionfi followed after 10 monthes in December 1450. Which one could call a "late reaction".

In contrary to Florence Ferrara reacted quick and immediately (as far card playing activities are concerned): Leonello paid at 16th of March a surprizingly small sum (1 Lira per deck; this likely tells us, that these decks had a lower quality and that likely cause Sagramoro hadn't much time to produce better) to Sagramoro (the specialist for Trionfi cards) and at the end of the month Leonello personally was in Milan to congratulate Sforza on his triumphal march in the city.
Nobody tells us, that the 3 decks of Sagramoro are made for Francesco Sforza. But the last Trionfi cards note in Ferrara appeared 7 1/2 years or 90 monthes ago, and just in the 91th month Leonello restarted this Trionfi card business. This is by normal evaluation a 1:91 - why just then?

It's rather clear by probability calculation (with very small chances - ca. 1 % - for the alternative "accidental coincidence"), that Sforza's success and Leonello's commission were a correlated activity. If Sforza hadn't won his dukedom, Leonello wouldn't have commissioned these decks.

So this tells us something: it's Leonello, who revives the earlier Trionfi card culture. Sforza wouldn't actually be in the position to do such things (things of more importance have to be done, "bread for the people" was the way with which Sforza wins sympathies in Milan). Florence was still in the course of earlier card prohibitions.

Sforza had his success in Milan, but too excessive "Trionfo habits" he avoided. For instance he insisted to ride on a horse and didn't accept a triumphal chariot, which was offered.
Generally all these Trionfi stuff, which developed then in Italy, meets not his personal character as a ruler. He was of low descendace, he was a condottieri and he had won his battles not with words or great gestures or "symbolic victories", but with wise and very practical decisions. And in the same manner he ruled about Milan.

The triumphal march occurred in March 1450. Now we've three great Italian movements (beside the Sforza success) for the year 1450, which determine the situation of the two Trionfi documents (Florence-allowance and Sforza-letter, both in December) beside the third (Leonello as the "reviver of Trionfi cards" "in March).

1. The papal Jubilee year
2. A great peste, especially in Milan
3. Peace negotiations in Florence, which ended in a "sort of peace".

The Jubilee year became a big success ... this especially, as the counter-pope Felix had given up the year before and the church was united again, but also as the church had a very promising pope, which united a lot of sympathies. The Jubilee year 1450 is said to have been a much greater success than the Jubilee years of 1475 and 1500.
Lots of pilgrims wandered to Rome and a lot of local festivities took place this year and a lot of money wandered to Italy.

As the council of Constance (1415) worked towards liberal conditions for card playing, also the Jubilee year likely formed the condition, that the behaviour of outside pilgrims (from countries with more tolerant laws) met the local card playing prohibitions in Italy and that the Italian had for the moment better things to do than to regulate its visitors in too stupid manners.

So we find a card playing allowance in Florence (with special focus on Trionfi cards) and there is reason to assume a local production - then. A peace was negotiated and in the exspection, that this peace would create stable conditions, a law positive to playing cards was given (though, it was only a limited "allowance", the interest to control this game seems still living.

***

... that's now the moment to repeat the above statement:

Quote:
"In addition, the consensus is changing on the dating and provenance of the so-called Charles VI pack, and its sister pack in Catania. Comparisons of the designs with the Rosenwald sheets, from Florence (or nearby in Tuscany), as well as the numbering later placed on them, indicate a Florentine provenance (Done by Caldwell and Depaulis, 2005). Independently, Cristina Fiorini concluded from an art historical perspective that the cards are Florentine, and date to around 1450."
We made our detailed studies about the development of the Trionfi cards since 2003, so Christina Fiorini, who wrote earlier, hadn't a chance to consider
our argumentation.

But she argued, as Ross said, with "1450" for the Charles VI cards.

Dummett, Decker and Depaulis in 1996 stated in a "Wicked Pack of Cards":
Quote:
"By costume, by artistic style and by the close similarity of design of two of the cards with those of of an earlier set made for Ercole I d'Este, Duke of Ferrara, or of his predecessor Borso d'Este, the cards still often called Charles VI tarots are commonly identified as in fact painted by a Ferrarese artist in about 1480." p. 28
So, what has been changed? The costumes and the artistic style still are the same, that we see. When they earlier were identified as from 1480, why now suddenly 1450 is regarded as possible? "Ferrarese style" is something like a "holy cow", so why can it suddenly be interpreted as "Florentine style"?
Top   #1
Ross G Caldwell's Avatar
Ross G Caldwell  Ross G Caldwell is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 07 Jul 2003
Location: Béziers, France
Posts: 2,649
Ross G Caldwell 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huck

Quote:
"By costume, by artistic style and by the close similarity of design of two of the cards with those of of an earlier set made for Ercole I d'Este, Duke of Ferrara, or of his predecessor Borso d'Este, the cards still often called Charles VI tarots are commonly identified as in fact painted by a Ferrarese artist in about 1480." p. 28

So, what has been changed? The costumes and the artistic style still are the same, that we see. When they earlier were identified as from 1480, why now suddenly 1450 is regarded as possible? "Ferrarese style" is something like a "holy cow", so why can it suddenly be interpreted as "Florentine style"?
So, what has been changed? The costumes and the artistic style still are the same, that we see. When they earlier were identified as from 1480, why now suddenly 1450 is regarded as possible? "Ferrarese style" is something like a "holy cow", so why can it suddenly be interpreted as "Florentine style"?
The discussion of these cards has slowly moved southwest, and only recently come into real focus. D'Allemagne (1906) suggested Venice (everybody thought highly of Venice then - there are no cards from there today); Klein (1967) didn't suggest a place (IIRC), but did put them in the middle of the 15th century; Kaplan took up d'Allemagne's postion, then Dummett (1980), noting the similarities with the Este cards, suggested Ferrara. Depaulis was the first to suggest a Bolognese origin, in 1984. Algeri (1987) went back strongly to Dummett's position, with a date of 1470-1480. Dummett later (1993) suggested that maybe they were painted in Ferrara for a prominent Bolognese family. So in 1996, the cards were hovering between Ferrara and Bologna.

Florence has been gaining prominence in early tarot history since Pratesi (1990) found evidence of it there since 1450. Bellosi (1985) had already suggested a Florentine origin for the Rothschild cards, but his work was isolated, unable to be placed in the general body of card history.

After 1996, with the discovery of the "Issy Chariot", the ball started rolling. With the Warsaw Museum cards, THIS was what the Ferrara school looked like (affinities with Tura, Piero della Francesca). The similarities among the Charles VI, Rothschild, and Este cards now stood out (to some people, like Depaulis and Fiorini). The styles of all of them, along with the Catania cards, seem interdependent - i.e. they are part of a "school".

My own track was independent, and different. I began to look at Florence as a contender for the origin of tarot when I began thinking of A as the original order. I already thought that Charles VI and Catania were Bolognese, because of the order, but the Chariot did bug me. It was 10, which was unheard of in Bologna, and secondly, Bolognese cards should not be numbered at all at this time (especially the lowest ones). The breakthrough came for me in February of 2006, when I had the bright idea of comparing printed versions of a known general provenance with painted cards of disputed provenance. Voilà! Charles VI looked a lot more like Florentine printed cards then Bolognese ones. I shared this with Thierry, who told me about Cristina's work, and the rest is history.

Since then, we have also learned that Mantua, in 1465, that a physician, Francesco Acerbi, had "a new pack of tarot cards, worked in gold in the Florentine manner." So, Florence's position is becoming ever better on the early tarot scene.

We have come a long way from what Michael Dummett had to report in 1980, that tarot's presence in Florence could only be securely dated to the end of the 15th century. We know now that it had spread all over northern Italy in the course of a decade or two, and down to Naples at least by the 1470s. It was really an explosion, not a slow diffusion.

(I still favour the A order, but I'm not so sure of the city of origin anymore)

Ross
Top   #2
Huck  Huck is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 02 Jul 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,682
Huck 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross G Caldwell
Since then, we have also learned that Mantua, in 1465, that a physician, Francesco Acerbi, had "a new pack of tarot cards, worked in gold in the Florentine manner." So, Florence's position is becoming ever better on the early tarot scene.

We have come a long way from what Michael Dummett had to report in 1980, that tarot's presence in Florence could only be securely dated to the end of the 15th century. We know now that it had spread all over northern Italy in the course of a decade or two, and down to Naples at least by the 1470s. It was really an explosion, not a slow diffusion.

Ross
How do you conclude this "explosion"?

3 Minchiate notes? The Roman note? The Naples notes? That's all?
Top   #3
Ross G Caldwell's Avatar
Ross G Caldwell  Ross G Caldwell is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 07 Jul 2003
Location: Béziers, France
Posts: 2,649
Ross G Caldwell 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huck
How do you conclude this "explosion"?

3 Minchiate notes? The Roman note? The Naples notes? That's all?
I liken it to an "explosion" by a chart like this:



... and a map like this -



... which show how quickly evidence - documentary, iconographic, and physical - appears up and down Italy.

The documentary evidence is just the tip of the iceberg, not the whole picture. But it is becoming clearer and clearer where you want to look for more evidence.

All of tarot games show common features, as far back as we can document them. They have common ancestry, and spread, mostly invisible to history. They didn't leap from place to place, one at a time, separated by years, each time a "new" invention.

Ross
Top   #4
Huck  Huck is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 02 Jul 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,682
Huck 

Hm.

I see two decks for Florence very early ... so somebody must feel rather sure about it. Is it from Fiorini or somebody else?

I see 3 documents of Rome, which are still dark holes to me. Platina is counted?

I see Ancona, Recanati, Fabriano (unknown)

I see 3 iconography elements in Milan (frescoes in Pavia ?)

I see 2 notes from Ferrara between 1465 - 1470 ? Also a note in 1480 (Boiardo or what?

I see, that the Minchiate appearances are not noted

Quote:
All of tarot games show common features, as far back as we can document them. They have common ancestry, and spread, mostly invisible to history. They didn't leap from place to place, one at a time, separated by years, each time a "new" invention.
When I talk about the individual decks, I talk about the "early period", let's say before 1470 and before decisive book-printing in Italy. Nonetheless we've
original development like Boiardo deck and Sola Busca.

For this time we have Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo, Brera-Brambilla and Cary-Yale traditionally, nothing else, beside the single Ferrarese card. If you or Fiorini - correct or incorrect - placed the Charles VI and the Catania deck in the 50ies, then two more. So what would you tell more and new about it?
Top   #5

mjhurst  mjhurst is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 24 Jul 2003
Location: California, U.S.A.
Posts: 316
mjhurst 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross G Caldwell
I liken it to an "explosion" by a chart like this:
Outstanding. I love good graphics: The concentration of information and simplification makes the point so much more forcefully.

P.S. A legend, briefly describing each data point as suggested by Huck, is needed.
Top   #6
Ross G Caldwell's Avatar
Ross G Caldwell  Ross G Caldwell is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 07 Jul 2003
Location: Béziers, France
Posts: 2,649
Ross G Caldwell 

Hi Huck,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huck
I see two decks for Florence very early ... so somebody must feel rather sure about it. Is it from Fiorini or somebody else?
No, the "2" refers to the note 2 below - "Hypothesis". This is the placement of Charles VI, Catania, and Rothschild cards ca. 1450. Except for the Rothschild cards, which she improbably placed ca. 1420, Fiorini has that view, and Depaulis (and I) accept it too. I don't know who would argue against it at this point.

Quote:
I see 3 documents of Rome, which are still dark holes to me. Platina is counted?
Thierry Depaulis found these last year, published in a 1995 article by Arnold Esch, "Roman customs registers 1470-1480: items of interest to historians of art and material culture", in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 58 (1995), pp. 72-87.

The entries refer to cards and trionfi being imported from Florence. Besides cards, Esch says "Also mentioned are trionfi, that is, printed or painted tarock cards: for example, a Florentine brings in 'quattro parra de trionfi et carte indorate e doi para de trionfi.' Another Florentine imports 'una cassetta de trionfi et carte da jocare,' with an estimated value of 6 duc 18 bol and '23 para triunfi' with a value of 7 duc 54 bol. In other cases 'para trionfi' are assessed at 7 1/2 bol, or 10 bol, or 23 1/2 bol. - differences in value are to be expected in goods of this sort." (quoted to me by Depaulis).

Quote:
I see Ancona, Recanati, Fabriano (unknown)
These three were conveyed to me by Thierry last year.

Ancona comes from the 1460 "Constitutiones sive Statuta magnifice civitatis Ancone" (codified in 1460, published in 1513), quoted in Jean Colin, "Cyriaque d'Ancone: le voyageur, le marchand, l'humaniste" (Paris, 1981), p. 95. I don't have the passage.

Recanati is only "ca. 1480", and comes from Monaldo Leopardi, Annali di Recanati, con le leggi e i costumi degli antichi recanatesi, (Varese, 1945).

Fabriano comes from Romualdo Sassi, "Appunti sul giuoco delle carte a Fabriano nei secoli XV e XVI", Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Marche, Atti e Memorie, S. VII, vol. III, 1948, pp. 137-153.

In August 1476, "a group of youngsters had asked the Council whether they could 'ludere ad carthas in ludo non prohibito et ad triumphos publice.'" (They asked whether they could play permitted card games and triumphs in public).

There is also a law from 1507 talking about the regulations of triumphi and other card games (quite a late reference to the name "triumphi").

Quote:
I see 3 iconography elements in Milan (frescoes in Pavia ?)
Borromeo, Roccabianca, and Pavia. Borromeo is generally taken to be tarot, and Roccabianca (now in Milan) has been seen in this way (Olsen, 1994), no doubt because it fits the pattern established by the other two (Milan and Pavia).

Even if you take out the disputed iconographic items, the documentary pattern is not disturbed.

Quote:
I see, that the Minchiate appearances are not noted
Good point!


Quote:
For this time we have Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo, Brera-Brambilla and Cary-Yale traditionally, nothing else, beside the single Ferrarese card.
It's not just a single card. It belongs with the two Warsaw cards (Kaplan I, p. 109).

Quote:
If you or Fiorini - correct or incorrect - placed the Charles VI and the Catania deck in the 50ies, then two more. So what would you tell more and new about it?
Specifically for your 5x14 theory, it has serious implications.

Ross
Top   #7
Huck  Huck is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 02 Jul 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,682
Huck 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross G Caldwell
Hi Huck,
No, the "2" refers to the note 2 below - "Hypothesis". This is the placement of Charles VI, Catania, and Rothschild cards ca. 1450. Except for the Rothschild cards, which she improbably placed ca. 1420, Fiorini has that view, and Depaulis (and I) accept it too. I don't know who would argue against it at this point.
I think, that the argument (Fiorini) depends on an iconographic identification and that Giovanni del Ponte is regarded as the artist.
When did he die? As far I remember, he was dead in 1450 ... so something is impossible. But checking the web ... born 1385, dead 1437.

So ... where is this argument, that just this deck is the deck of 1450?



Giovanni del Ponte



One of his cards ... here is more:
http://trionfi.com/0/c/40/

(... I never noted it, but this knight looks, as if he has a naked ass ...)

For the Rothschild cards, which very well might be "Imperatori cards" (and it would be nice, if one could be sure about it) the date "before 1437" is not disturbing. The high technique ... why not? It seems, that woodcut technique entered at the begin of the 20ies (and caused a phase of very high prizes), perhaps that made it to Giovanni del Ponte. At least: We have at 1430 a woodcut printer in Florence.

But since 1434 we have Pope Eugen in the city.

But why shall the Charles VI be so early?


The Roman entries:
Quote:
Thierry Depaulis found these last year, published in a 1995 article by Arnold Esch, "Roman customs registers 1470-1480: items of interest to historians of art and material culture", in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 58 (1995), pp. 72-87.

The entries refer to cards and trionfi being imported from Florence. Besides cards, Esch says "Also mentioned are trionfi, that is, printed or painted tarock cards: for example, a Florentine brings in 'quattro parra de trionfi et carte indorate e doi para de trionfi.' Another Florentine imports 'una cassetta de trionfi et carte da jocare,' with an estimated value of 6 duc 18 bol and '23 para triunfi' with a value of 7 duc 54 bol. In other cases 'para trionfi' are assessed at 7 1/2 bol, or 10 bol, or 23 1/2 bol. - differences in value are to be expected in goods of this sort." (quoted to me by Depaulis).
Hm. The date is still between 1474 - 78?

Ancona etc.
Quote:
These three were conveyed to me by Thierry last year.

Ancona comes from the 1460 "Constitutiones sive Statuta magnifice civitatis Ancone" (codified in 1460, published in 1513), quoted in Jean Colin, "Cyriaque d'Ancone: le voyageur, le marchand, l'humaniste" (Paris, 1981), p. 95. I don't have the passage.

Recanati is only "ca. 1480", and comes from Monaldo Leopardi, Annali di Recanati, con le leggi e i costumi degli antichi recanatesi, (Varese, 1945).

Fabriano comes from Romualdo Sassi, "Appunti sul giuoco delle carte a Fabriano nei secoli XV e XVI", Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Marche, Atti e Memorie, S. VII, vol. III, 1948, pp. 137-153.

In August 1476, "a group of youngsters had asked the Council whether they could 'ludere ad carthas in ludo non prohibito et ad triumphos publice.'" (They asked whether they could play permitted card games and triumphs in public).

There is also a law from 1507 talking about the regulations of triumphi and other card games (quite a late reference to the name "triumphi").
Developments after 1470 are exspectable. And Fabriano is the Italian paper city, so that's not really surprizing. Alessandro Sforza was in Pesaro and that's not too far.

Ancona 1460 ... an allowance? A prohibition?


Milan 1465 - 1470
Quote:
Borromeo, Roccabianca, and Pavia. Borromeo is generally taken to be tarot, and Roccabianca (now in Milan) has been seen in this way (Olsen, 1994), no doubt because it fits the pattern established by the other two (Milan and Pavia).

Even if you take out the disputed iconographic items, the documentary pattern is not disturbed.
Roccabianco I don't know.

Single Ferrarese card
Quote:
It's not just a single card. It belongs with the two Warsaw cards (Kaplan I, p. 109).
Same size? Same backs? What arguments?

Generally
Quote:
Specifically for your 5x14 theory, it has serious implications.
Well, if an argument occurs, which seriously could place the Charles VI cards at the date 1450 as the deck, which was produced together with the allowance in Florence ... well, than one should seriously consider this point. For the moment one should simply wait for the argument.

The novelties in your report give optimism, that still more documents appear and will appear on the surface. That is, what we have worked for, raising the general interest, so it's success.

We've from Florence the message (.. I would love to now, where we got it from and to know, if this was really correct ...), that the Johannes the Baptist had 22 edificii in the year 1454. This can be "wrong message", this can be "just accident", but it also can have a logical context with a Tarot card edition with the same number.

If it were true, it basicly wouldn't change, that the Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo-Tarocchi had probably 5x14 cards in its original form, and it also doesn't change the number 70 in a Ferrarese document of 1457.

For instance: The possibility, that they made 22 special cards in Florence for Florentian Trionfi decks and 14 in Milan and Ferrara at the same time exists ... it isn't really problematic. Later they made 41 special cards in Florence and 22 in Ferrara and Milan.

Inside the current 5x14-theory it's suggested as probable, that Florence made something new either in 1463 or after it. A Roman enthusiasm about Trionfi cards (really a good finding), especially from Florence, after 1473 has logic ... one of the Riario nephews became archbishop from Florence in 1473 with big festivity in Florence and the Riario loved playing cards.

As Platina speaks about cards in his work around the middle 70's, one should assume that he speaks about Trionfi cards.
Top   #8
Huck  Huck is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 02 Jul 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,682
Huck 

I'm a little confused, cause Ray Luberti gave earlier the information, that the theories around Giovanni del Ponte were brought up by Luciano Bellosi

... not by Cristina Fiorini.

http://www.fbsr.it/eng/pagine.php?s=&pg=280

This page (from Benetton, so likely by the influence of Ortalli) gives the impression, that it was made by Cristina Fiorini ... academic year, award 2002-2003

our page

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

mentions Luciano Bellosi as the origin for this thesis.

He has a Wikipedia entry:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciano_Bellosi

and from there it seems, that his related work was (?)

"Buffalmacco e il Trionfo della Morte", Torino 1975
Top   #9
Ross G Caldwell's Avatar
Ross G Caldwell  Ross G Caldwell is offline
Citizen
 
Join Date: 07 Jul 2003
Location: Béziers, France
Posts: 2,649
Ross G Caldwell 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huck
I'm a little confused, cause Ray Luberti gave earlier the information, that the theories around Giovanni del Ponte were brought up by Luciano Bellosi

... not by Cristina Fiorini.
Not sure what you're confused about.

I *did* mention it, two days ago on the "Number 21" thread -
http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=90572 (post #18)
Quote:
("Cristina Fiorini" - in case you want to look up the name on the web) She finished a thesis under the direction of Ortalli, and won a prize for it. It developed Bellosi's theory that the Rothschild cards (in the Louvre) are from Florence and were painted by Giovanni dal Ponte. She studied the cards personally, and had help while in Paris from Thierry Depaulis. The most important thing they noticed (or the most convincing for me) was the Emperor's coin, which can only be the Florentine gold florin.

She published an article in The Playing Card, in Italian, in 2006, with a summary of her findings. Because of my interest in the subject and my independent view of the Florentine origin of the Charles VI (I also accept the Rothschild's being from Florence), Thierry insisted I write a response, which I did. Although supportive of some of her conclusions, I didn't agree with either the attribution to Giovanni, nor to very early dating she suggested (1420), based on that attribution (and other, vaguer, considerations).
Cristina and Ray probably know each other, through Ortalli. Ray probably knew of her research when he was talking with us.

Quote:
http://www.fbsr.it/eng/pagine.php?s=&pg=280

This page (from Benetton, so likely by the influence of Ortalli) gives the impression, that it was made by Cristina Fiorini ... academic year, award 2002-2003

our page

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

mentions Luciano Bellosi as the origin for this thesis.
You can't rely on the short blurb from the Fondazione Benetton to fill you in on all the details!

Quote:
He has a Wikipedia entry:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciano_Bellosi

and from there it seems, that his related work was (?)

"Buffalmacco e il Trionfo della Morte", Torino 1975
No, it was "Su alcuni disegni italiani tra la fine del Due e la metà del Quattrocento", in: Bollettino d'Arte, LXX, marzo-apr. 1985, pp. 1-42;
reproduced in a collection of his articles,
"Come un prato fiorito : studi sull'arte tardogotica", Milan, 2000.

Ross
Top   #10
Elsewhere on the Tarot Forum
Popular Tarot Boards
· Using Tarot Cards
· Talking Tarot
· Tarot Spreads
· Tarot Decks
· Rider-Waite-Smith

Special Interest Boards
· Astrology
· Crystals & Herbs
· Divination
· Lenormand
· Spirituality

Popular Tarot Threads
· Pet Peeves
· Timing of cards
· Interesting tarot pairs
· The Moon as how someone feels
· The World as feelings

More Tarot Threads
· Cards for certain events
· Tarot meanings for health
· List of Tarot Questions
· Can Tarot be Dangerous?
· List of Tarot Myths



Elsewhere on Aeclectic Tarot
· Tarot Cards & Reviews
· Free Tarot Readings
· Tarot eBooks
· Tarot Card Meanings

Copyright © 1996 - 2022 Aeclectic Tarot. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy. Contact us. Advertise with us.