Huck
Ross wrote in the other thread
http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=90572&page=2
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:
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":
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"?
http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=90572&page=2
"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:
"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":
"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"?