Introduction

This blog is based on my posts on Tarot History Forum (THF) in the thread "Giovanni dal Ponte and the Rothschild", which I initiated at http://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1005 in February 2014. Readers are warned that this is a rather specialized essay that doesn't reach a clear conclusion. So unless you have a special interest in these cards, it might be a good essay of mine to skip in favor of others.

Modified Jan. 2016: I made a couple of changes to parts 1 and 2 based on input from Franco Pratesi. 

Modified Feb. 2017: This was to reflect images, documentation, and ideas found in  the catalog of a dal Ponte exhibition at the Accademia Gallery in Florence, as well as a discussion on the Tarot History Forum at the above link, starting p. 3 of the thread, that resumed after an almost 2 year hiatus and spilled over onto other threads, of which the most important is that on "Ser Ristoro (playing cards to 1434 Ferrara", http://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1163. These modifications to my original piece are at various places throughout.

Christina Fiorini wrote an essay on the Rothschild-Bergamo cards ("I tarocchi della Collezione Rothschild al Louvre: nuove proposte di lettura [The Tarot Cards of the Rothschild Collection in the Louvre: New Hypotheses], The Playing-Card 35:1 (Sept. 2006), pp. 52-63, to which Ross Caldwell wrote a  reply in the same journal exactly one year later (36:1, pp. 51-62). It seems to me that the issues Fiorini's essay raises are worth pursuing further, in a format that (unlike the journal) allows us to look at the artwork and documents in as much detail as we need.

For anyone who would like to read her article first, in either Italian or my unprofessional English, see the last section of this blog. My presentation, however, does not depend on reading her article.

I do not want to put in question the Florentine origin of the cards. In that regard Ross was in full agreement with her points, and so am I. Also, I want to make it clear that I do not wish to defend either Ross or Fiorini, but rather to pursue that elusive quarry, the Truth.

Here are the issues I want to discuss.

1. Are these cards really part of a tarot deck, or perhaps for some other game, notably Emperors? Since this question involves looking at documentary records, I will also include a related question: what documentation is there suggesting that dal Ponte actually did produce painted cards?

2. How do the cards compare with the dal Ponte cassoni paintings of which we have record?

3. How does the Rothschild Knight of Batons relate to the dal Ponte "St. George" of a similar design? This is a point of dispute between Fiorini and Ross.

4. How do the faces in dal Ponte paintings compare with the faces in the cards? This is another issue raised by Ross.

5. Can the style of the cards be dated specifically to the 1420s as opposed to the 1450s-1460s? Fiorini tries to deal with this issue first, but without actual images it is difficult to discuss. I put it last because by then we will have seen at least some of his works.

Questions 1 & 2; cards and cassoni

Question 1. Are these cards really part of a tarot deck, or perhaps for some other game, notably Emperors?

The game of "VIII Emperors" is documented in the court account records of Ferrara, as explained at  at http://trionfi.com/0/p/06/#a. It specifies

one pack of cards of VIII Emperors gilded, which was brought from Florence for Milady Marchesana which Zoesi servant of said Lady had; priced 7 florins, new, and for expenses (of the transport) from Florence to Ferrara 6 Bolognese soldi; in all valued….. L. XIIII.VI. Bolognese 

The "gilded" part fits the Rothschild cards. The date and place is consistent with Fiorini.

We might wonder what "VIII Emperors" could be. It would not likely be one played with just 8 cards, all "emperors". And if it were, the Rothschild clearly are not them, as there are 9 cards in all, including one in Bassono. Pratesi speculated in a note (http://www.naibi.net/a/501-comtrio-z.pdf: see the table, type T2) that they were, like the 16 triumphal cards of Marziano's "game of the gods", cards that both formed a suit of their own and attached to the 4 regular suits. In this case there would be 2 special cards attached to each suit, probably an Empress and an Emperor. Each would bear imperial attributes as well as the suit-sign.

A card of 1660 posted by "Huck" on THF, although a King of Swords, actually looks like it might be descended from an Emperor card, because the figure is wearing an imperial crown and also holding a globe divided into three parts. These sections were sometimes given the labels "Europe", "Asia", and "Africa", and so representing the known world at that time. We can imagine a similar card for Cups and Batons, merely changing what the figure holds in his right hand. For the Emperor of Coins, it would be reasonable to suppose that the design would be different, so as to avoid his holding two round circles. The one remaining Rothschild Emperor card shows one way of doing it: he holds an imperial scepter, topped with Charlemagne's fleur-de-lys, int he right hand and a gold disc (or perhaps a ball), similar to a coin but less defined,  which in this scanario would be the suit object. We know that this card is not itself a King of Coins because another card of the nine Rothschild/Bassanos has a crown and no imperial attributes but also holds a gold disc.

How many cards made up the deck is not clear. The Rothschild cards are all court cards. If all the cards in the deck were such, plus the imperials, there would be 24 cards in all. With number cards the number of course goes up: to 28 if there is one number card, to 32 if there are two, and so on, up to 40 + 24 = 64 cards if all ten numbers are present.

In 1434 there is another note from Ferrara for expensive cards. Pratesi wrote about it at http://www.naibi.net/A/30-PRISECO-Z.pdf:

Prima di passare alla legislazione sui giochi che rappresenta la fonte più tradizionale per i dati iniziali sulle carte si può citare un’ulteriore fonte di notizie. Questa volta si tratta di testimonianze esterne, derivanti cioè dagli archivi di altre città. Una delle più importanti di tali documentazioni fu pubblicata nel 1874 dal Campori, dagli archivi estensi: “nel 1434 il Marchese Nicolò III faceva pagare a Ser Ristoro e compagni in Firenze sette fiorini d’oro prezzo di due mazzi di carticelle mandatogli a Ferrara”. Il fatto che tali carte giungessero alla corte di Ferrara è tanto più sorprendente in quanto in Firenze all’epoca le carte da gioco erano proibite: solo una produzione fiorente e rinomata o l’uso di carte particolari potrebbe spiegare il mantenimento di quella tradizione.

(Before moving to the legislation on games, which represents the most traditional source for the initial data on the cards, a further source of information can be mentioned. This time it concerns external testimonies, i.e. that arising from the archives of other cities. One of the most important of these documents was published in 1874 by Campori, from the Este archives: "In 1434 the Marquis Nicolo III made payment to Ser Ristoro and companions in Florence seven gold florins, the price of two decks of small cards sent to him in Ferrara". The fact that these cards went to the court of Ferrara is all the more surprising because in Florence at the time the cards were forbidden: only a thriving and well-known production or use of special cards may explain the maintenance of that tradition.)

We do not know what these cards were, except that they were "special", and that it suggests a thriving industry in Florence producing such cards, even if they were illegal at the time. In fact it would not be until 1437 that any games, both trick-taking type, were made exceptions to the rule. While "VIII Emperors" and  triumphs were undoubtedly trick-taking games as well, nothing with "imperatori" is mentioned ever in the laws of Florence, and triumphs only in 1450, adding that game to the list of permitted games.

It remains reasonably possible that the Rothschild cards are the remnants of a tarot deck, but the likelihood decreases the further removed the cards are from 1440, the year first documented for a game of that name, purchased from Florence by Giusti Giusti of Angieri for Sigismondo Malatesta, lord of Rimini. Decker, Depaulis, and Dummett said in Wicked Pack of Cards that the tarot could be as early as 1410. A seventeenth century painting in Bologna attributed the invention of [i]tarocchini[/i], the Bolognese word for a shortened version of the deck, to Prince Fibbia of that city, a real person who Andrea Vitali found had died in that city in 1419, It is of course important to get some idea of when the cards were made.

That games with playing cards were all technically illegal in Florence must be taken into account when interpreting the lack of hard data about Florentine card-making. Probably not coincidentally, all the documents before 1443 are of cards made in Florence but sent outside Tuscany to Ferrara or Rimini. Even the 1443 document is not of a card-maker, but rather of two men convicted for playing the game. It was legal to make goods whose use is prohibited in Florence but destined for export, expensive clothes, for example, that violated Florences "sumptuary" laws. In such a case, it would not do to keep track of one's illegal sales within Florence, even if such sales were widely tolerated. One never knew when there would be a change in the political "weather", or a new and puritanical investigator brought in from one of the outlaying towns

Despite this caution, there are a few known card-makers in Florence, known not from records but from second-hand accounts. These would not be evidence in court. Dal Ponte's name is not among them. Yet there is still good reason to think that he did produce cards occasionally. He was certainly not a manufacturer of cheap cards for the masses. His clientele would have been the same as for his cassoni: the well to do. Such cards would not be tracked. There are three good reasons for thinking he did so. One is that he did cassoni; in later years cassoni producers were sometimes also painters of playing cards. I will give the documentary evidence for such production in the next section, 2A. Another reason is that he seems to have trained a painter later associated with playing cards among other things. He may have learned this trade after dal Ponte, to be sure, but perhaps not. This person will be the subject of section 2B. And third, there are many stylistic similarities between the cards and dal Ponte's known works. This will be the subject of section 2C.

Question 2. How do the cards compare with the dal Ponte cassoni paintings of which we have record?

On Del Ponte's cassoni, I will start with documentation. There is more than one might expect, because he was frequently in trouble with his creditors. There are several dated lists of debts and credits, with descriptions of the goods, names, ages, etc. These are summarized in English by Horne in "Giovanni da Ponte", Burlington Magazine 9:41 (Aug. 1906), pp. 332-337, available in JSTOR, including several cassoni. In addition, Horne published some of the documents in an Italian journal, [Revista d’Arte  OV. 1906, 10/21 pp. 168-181, under the title “Appendice di documenti su Giovanni dal Ponte”. These documents and others have recently been published again in the Nov. 2016 catalog to the Galleria dell’Accademia’s dal Ponte exhibition in Florence.

As far as the number that are still extant, it is difficult to say, because in most cases the panels have been separated. I will either show or give links to eight separated panels and one complete cassone (in a private collection) that I have found so far. None of these lists mention cards of any sort.

2A: DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO CASSONI

The fist mention of cassoni, then called Forzieri, in the Nov. 2016 catalog is in their document V, for the years 1422-1423 (catalog pp. 445-6):

V) ASF, Corporazioni religiose soppresse dal governo francese 79, n. [start p. 226] 119 (Debitori e Creditori e Ricordi di Ilarione dei Bardi, 1420-1431), cc. 33 e v, 34
[15 marzo 1421 (1422); 25 marzo 1422 (1423)]

«A dì XV detto [di marzo] fiorini dieci per me paghasi a Giovanni di Marcho dipintore posto debino darsi e posto in questo a carta 34 per la paga per forzieri fa desinancia fiorini X.

[documento inedito]

Giovanni di Marcho dipintore che sta di chasa presso i Gherardini de' dare a dì XV di marzo 1421, scritto lungo il margine esterno della pagina] fiorini dieci ebi posto per prestanza da Chosimo e Lorenzo [di Giovanni] di Medri posto alla carta 33 per forzieri fa desinancia                                             fiorini X.

[documento inedito]

Giovanni di Marcho dipintore de' avere a dì 25 di marzo 1422 fiorini quarantacinque posto avanzi debino dare in questo 56. Sono per un paio di forzieri ebbi da lui che li donai a la Chostanza mia nipote quando n'andò a marito a Bartolomeo d'Ugho degli Alessandri fiorini XLV.» 5

Translation: 

V) ASF, religious guilds suppressed by the French Government 79, n. [Start p. 226] 119 (Debtors and Creditors and Memories of Hilarion of Bardi, 1420-1431), cc. 33 and v, 34

([March 15, 1421 (1422); March 25, 1422 (1423)]

"On the fifteenth said [of March] ten florins by me are paid to Giovanni di Marco painter place debino giving and put in this page 34 to pay for cassoni to go desinancia florins X.

[Unpublished document]

John Marcho painter whose house is at Gherardini of giving fifteenth day of March 1421, [written along the outer margin of the page] ebi ten florins put to borrow from Chosimo and Lorenzo [John] of Medri place at page 33 cassoni desinancia florins X.

[documento inedito]

Giovanni di Marco painter to have on March 25, 1422, forty-five florins placed in advance  debino in this 56. They are  for a couple of chests I had from him that I gave to Costanza my niece when as her husband she is married to Bartolomeo d'Ugho Alessandri, florins XLV.

  I do not know if this is two pairs of cassoni (forzieri) or just one. If two, one would be March 15, 1422, with the money apparently borrowed from “Chosimo e Lorenzo [di Giovanni] di Medri”. The other us March 25, 1423 for the wedding of Bartolomeo d’Ugho degli Allesandri. But the first may be a down payment for the second.

Horne says of dal Ponte in these years only:

1422 [i.e. 1423, our reckoning], March 25.-Is paid 45 florins for a pair of [i]forzieri[/i], or chests, made for Ilarione de' Bardi, as a gift to his niece, Costanza, on her marriage with Bartolommeo di Ugo degli Alessandri.

This pair had been documented earlier by Gamba (Rassegna d'Arte vol. iv p. 185, doc. 4). Fiorini makes much of this 1423 pair, suggesting that this wedding would have been a likely occasion for a luxury deck of cards as well. Both Horne and Fiorini do not comment on the pair for which money in 1422 is borrowed from "Chosimo e Lorenzo [di Giovanni] di Medri". These must be the Medici brothers, certainly significant money lenders.

In 1424, Horne relates, dal Ponte is put in prison for 8 months for non-payment of debts, after which he works out an agreement with his creditors to pay them off over 5 years. This event is not in the documents of the Nov. 2016 catalog that I can find.

In 1427, the documents in the Nov. 2016 catalog have several mentions of forzieri.

E in lavorio fatto e più masserizie di bottecha stimo vaglia fiorini 50 perchè è forzieri fo, me gli dano di lengname e cittadini, ma la metà di Smeraldo suo compagh[n]o
...
Giovanozo e Cristofano Bigliotti da parte Bigliotti per forzieri della sirocchia maritarono a quello de' Ghondi fiorini 30 per spese
...
Salvestro di Dino forzierinaio lire 35 soldi 10 denari 7

The second above is in a list of debts owed dal Ponte, the third among those he owes others.

Horne notices (p. 335), in the list of people who owe dal Ponte money:

Giovannozzo and Paolo Biliotti, for the forzieri [or wedding chests], of their sister whom they married to one of the Gondis, 30 florins.

I cannot account for the difference between “Cristofano” in the catalog and “Paolo” in Horne.

Horne adds:

Among his creditors are: - ‘Mariotto di Manno, dipintore’, ‘Luca di Matteo, cofanaio,' and 'Salvestro di Dino, forzerinaio.'

We have already seen this item. I assume that a “forzerinaio” is a cassone maker, I assume before it is painted.

In 1427 one set of cassoni appear in dal Ponte's partner Smeraldo's "denuncia", in which, Horne says, (p. 337):

Matteo degli Strozzi owes us for the balance on a pair of forzieri, or chests, which he had from us on the 6th May, 14 florins or thereabouts; and Zanobi di Bartolommeo Banchebi owes us 22 florins for the balance on a pair of forzieri.

In 1431 (Jan. 31, 1430, in Florentine reckoning), the documents state for dal Ponte

Angnolo di Ghezo e sue rede per resto di forzieri fiorini 10
...
Zanobi di Gherardo Cortigiani e fratelli per resto di forzieri fiorini 7 lire 2
Anchora fac[i]amo a Bardo di Francescho de' Bardi un paio di forzieri viensi di quello v'è fatto fiorini 50

In 1430-31 (Jan 31), Dal Ponte and his partner state jointly, according to Horne (p. 336):

Moreover, we are making for Bardo di Francesco de' Bardi, a pair of forzieri or chests; what is executed amounts to 50 florins.

Moreover, we have begun to re-cover with gosso [preparatory for the painting] forzieri, or chests, which are the property of Luca di Matteo and Antonio di Martino.[what is executed amounts to] 4 florins.

Horne identifies this Luca as Luca di Matteo Firidolfi da Panzano, because a 1449 inventory of his furniture included "Uno forziere dorato bello".

Also they are owed the balance on chests from

Zanobi di Gherardo Cortigiano and his brothers, for the balance of forzieri.

What is missing is the pair of forzieri for Bardo di Francesco de’ Bardi. Perhaps he assumes that this is the same pair as for Ilarione de' Bardi in 1423. However the names are different

Then in 1433 (May 31) we have, in the catalog’s documents:

Zanobi di Gherardo Cortigiani e fratelli per resto di forzieri fiorini 7 lire 2

This would seem to be for the same chests as in 1431. Horne does not mention this item, probably for that reason.

After that, I don't see mention of any more cassoni, just churches. Yet surely dal Ponte did do cassoni in the 1430s. There are  the two with the 7 liberal arts and the 7 virtues, dated by the catalog to "1430-1435". The records are merely snapshots of what is still owed at particular times.

On November 19, 1437, Dal Ponte "executes a codicil to his will" (not mentioned in the catalog documents). About this Horne adds (p. 337):

Milanese in his notes to Vasari, ed. Sansoni, vol. 1, p. 633 note states that Giovanni died in 1437. This statement appears to be founded on a conjecture drawn from the document last cited. If Vasari's statement, that the painter died in his fifty-ninth year, were true, then Giovanni would have survived till 1444. It would seem, however, that he was already dead in 1442.

The reason for this comes out considerably later, when Horne turns to the “denuncias” of the partner, Smeraldo. Horne states (p. 337):

His fourth 'Denunzia,' dated August 31, 1442, was evidently returned after the death of Giovanni dal Ponte. In it he states: ‘I no longer possess any shop goods: I have sold everything, and no longer do any work. I live on the income of Goro di Giovanni di Michelozzo, flax-dresser, whom I have assisted in the past. Now it behoves him to give the costs [of living] to me and my wife.' In this' Denunzia,' Smeraldo states that he is seventy-six years of age and his wife sixty. Milanesi states in his notes to Vasari that Smeraldo died on August 26, 1444.[/quote]

2B. THE CASE OF ANTONIO DI DINO

In the records surveyed by Horne, there is also what appears to be an apprentice. This needs to be pursued further, because an artist, later documented as a card maker, appears later, in the 1440s.

In reviewing the information from the 1927 "Catasto" (a special tax assessment) Horne quotes a line in the list of people who owe, or are owed, money:

Antonio di Dino stette col detto Nanni fiorini 20

which Horne translates as

Antonio di Dino, who worked with the said Nanni, 20 florins

Horne then calls him a "garzone" of dal Ponte's, i.e. an apprentice. This initially confused me, as the translation only has him as someone who "works with" someone else called Nanni, referred to earlier--although looking in the earlier material, I could find no such "Nanni".

Franco Pratesi tells me that actually the verb "stette" here means "lives" or "stays", i.e.

Antonio di Dino, who stayed [or lived] with the said Nanni, 20 florins.

Moreover, as "Huck" on THF informed me, "Nanni" is short for "Giovanni".  So this Antonio di Dino lives with dal Ponte.

Horne's documents, hitherto available only in an Italian journal of very limited circulation, are included at the back of the catalog published in conjunction with the dal Ponte exhiition at the Galleria dell'Accedamia in Florence.. For 1433 there is another entry for Antonio di Dino:

Antonio di Dino stette mecho ò fare ragione co 'llui circha fiorini 28

 Pratesi tells me in an email (Feb. 17, 2017):

The money was due to pay the service, as from an initial contract involving rent and nourishment. Ò fare ragione co ‘llui– I have to balance with him, I still have to pay him. (Less likely, he has to pay me, this should be deduced from the context, which I have not examined.)

This is additional confirmation of his apprenticeship status: "stette mecho" again means "stayed with me".

Horne says more about Antonio di Dino:

This 'garzone' of Giovanni's was born in 1402 and after became a "maestro di tavoli di gesso". His name occurs in the old roll of the Campagna di San Luca, fol. 3 tergo, thus: Antonio didino dipintore mccccxxxxi.

That's 1441, I think.

In the November 2016 catalog, Annamaria  Bernacchioni ("Giovanni di Marco e la sua bottega: Clientela e produzione artistica", pp. 42-51) mentions our Antonio di Dino in terms similar to Horne's (p. 45):

Fra i plasticatori, oltre a un suo collaboratore Antonio di Dino, maestro di «tavole di gesso» e «tavole da abacho», incontriamo lo scultore Michele da Firenze detto Scalcagna e Lorenzo Ghiberti, impegnato in quegli anni nella messa in opera della seconda porta del battistero (13)
_____________
14. Jacobsen 2001, pp. 498-499; Bellazzecca 2010.

[Among the workers in the plastic arts, other than one of his collaborators Antonio di Dino, master of "tables of gesso" and "abacus tables", we encounter the sculptor Michele da Firenze called Scalcagna and Lorenzo Ghiberti, committed in those years in the implementation of the second door of the Baptistery (14).
________________
14. Jacobsen [Die Maler von Florenz zu Beginn der Renaissance], 2001, pp. 498-499; Bellazzecca ["Michele da Firenze" in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani LXXIV, pp. 165-166], 2010.]

Bernacchioni calls Antonio a "collaborator" of dal Ponte's, as well as a "maestro di tavoli di gesso". She is essentially endorsing Horne. But what is a "maestro di tavoli di gesso? Here is what Pratesi tells me (personal communication, Jan. 18, 2016):

Tavola di gesso, as far as I can understand it, is a plastered board, I suppose commonly of wood. Their use was manifold. In the school or later as a blackboard (whiteboard instead?) to write grammar and especially computations. In the environment of painters, maybe its first utilisation was for Tavola di Nostra Donna, painting to hang on the wall by every family. Their production was extensive and Datini imported many of them from Florence in Avignon for his trade around the 1380s.

 So this Antonio di Dino is at least someone who prepares boards on which paintings were sometimes done. Also, he is called "dipintore" in 1441. Dal Ponte had had a similar entry himself in 1408, in the same Compagna: "Giovannj dimarcho dipentore mccccviij". The date was subsequently altered to "mccccxii", but, Horne says, "the earlier year was probably that of the painter's entry into the company".

 What is of interest about this Antonio di Dino is that he not only is a painter but by 1445 appears as a card maker.  Pratesi observes (http://trionfi.com/etx-antonio-di-dino):

 The case of Antonio di Dino is somewhat particular, because the first time that we find him in book 12792 he did not supply cards. He was then mentioned as a maker and supplier of abaci, or counting frames (l. 2r – April 1442). Later on, we find him indicated on one occasion as a "tavolacciaio", maker of tables (12793, 25r – 1449).

But how do we know that this Antonio di Dino is the same as the one who was the apprentice for dal Ponte? "Antonio Dino" is not a common name among craftsmen in Florence at that time. Only one other one is known, whose full name was "Antonio di Dino Canacci". The Canacci were not painters, but rather tunber merchants or carpenters. Bernacchioni mentions the Canacci in the next paragraph after the one previously quoted:

Fra le professionalità collaterali che servivano alla filiera della produzione del manufatto artistico sono presenti il battiloro Bastiano di Giovanni, il cofanaio Luca di Matteo, che aveva bottega presso il duomo, il forzerinaio Salvestro di Dino attivo in borgo Santi Apostoli, lo speziale Cinozzo di Giovanni Cini, il merciaio Nofri di Salvestro Cennini, i setaioli del Benino e una folta schiera di famiglie di legnaioli attivi per l'Opera del Duomo, come i Borsi e i Canacci (15).
_______________
15 Guidotti 1984; Bernacchioni 2010; Ristori 1981; Molho-Sznura 2010, p. 33 nota 20; Mack 1980.

[On the professional side that served the chain of production of the artistic production are the gold-leaf maker Bastiano di Giovanni, the cofanaio [strong-box maker?] Luca di Matteo, who had a shop near the cathedral, the forzerinaio [chest-maker] Salvestro di Dino, active in the Holy Apostles district, the apothecary Cinozzo di Giovanni Cini, the haberdasher Nofri di Salvestro Cennini, the silk dealers/manufacturers of Benino and a large group of families of legnaioli [cabinet-makers, carpenters, timber merchants] active in the Opera del Duomo [work of the cathedral], such as the Borsi and Canacci (15).]
________________
15. Guidotti 1984; Bernacchioni 2010 [A. M. Bernacchioni, "Forzerinai, cofanai e dipintori: le botteghe nei documenti", in Virtu d'Amore. Pittura nuziale nel Quattrocento fiorentino, catalogo della mostra (Firenze, Galleria dell'Accademia; Museo Horne, 8 giugno - 1° novembre 2010), edited by C. Paolini, D. Parenti, L. Sebregondi, Florence 2010, pp. 97-183), pp. 97, 100; Ristori 1981; Molho-Sznura 2010, p. 33 nota 20; Mack ["A Carpenter's Catasto with Information on Masaccio, dal Ponte, Antonio di Domenico, and Others", in Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz XXIV, pp. 366-369], 1980.

I get this definition of :"legnaeili" from Nerida Newbegin, The Feste de l"Atone, vol. 2, index. In vol. 1, p. 106 she applies this term to the Canacci, calling them "timber merchants".

We might ask, did this Antonio di Dino learn card making from dal Ponte?  And might it be that the Rothschild cards are really by him rather than dal Ponte, who after all is not recorded as a card maker? These are hard questions."Huck" on Tarot History Forum (THF) says that the cards that Antonio di Dino is recorded were fairly cheap. "He was no great aratist." He may have learned the art from dal Ponte, and even done work on the Rothschild cards, but they did not likely come from him acting on his own.

2C: IMAGES

Now I will turn to the cassone paintings. One, tentatively attributed to dal Ponte by Callman (in Apollonio di Giovanni, p. 12) is a "Triumph of Fame", whereabouts unknown but for which there is a black and white photo (the same photo is also in an Italian essay by Malke). Callman says that it is "1420s or 1430s". Fiorini, as we will see, accepts this attribution. However others have dated it to c. 1400 and not made the attribution to dal Ponte. .

Fiorini observes:

Si notino, in particolare, le somiglianze fra l'Imperatore Rothschild e l'Imperatrice Rosenwald e quelle fra il Re di Bastoni Rothschild e Imperatore della serie americana (questi ultimi tra l'altro molto simili alla figura della Fama dipinta da Giovanni di Marco sul cassone raffigurante il Trionfo di quella Virtù.

(Notice, in particular, the similarities between the Rothschild Emperor and the Rosenwald Empress, and those between the Rothschild King of Batons and the Emperor of the American series (the latter of which is quite similar to the figure of Fame painted by Giovanni di Marco on the chest depicting the Triumph of that Virtue.)

The similarity between the Rothschild Emperor (at right) and the Rosenwald Empress (below, III) is in how they hold the gold orb and baton. The similarity she finds between the Rosenwald Emperor (below IV) and the figure of Fame (2nd below) is unclear to me, unless it is the triangular shape of the head. The similarity is closer between tthe figure of Fame and the Rosenwald Pope (below V). Here are all four Rosenwalds, followed by a detail from the Triumph of Fame and the Rothschild King of Batons.

Fiorini's observation of the similarity between the Rosenwald Emperor and the Rothschild King of Batons is well taken, although I am not sure why it is relevant. There is a noticable similarity between the Rothschild King of Batons and the male figures to the right of Fame, including the one below wearing a papal tiara. . They could also have been done by someone later who had worked for dal Ponte and took over his sketches. Such a person would not likely have had access to the cassone itself, being for a lady's private use

There is also another similarity, that between Fame, with her two grooms (at left below), and the Catania/Allesandro Sforza Charioteer and similarly positioned grooms (at right below). The faces, while both somewhat ambiguous in gender, are different. I suspect that a wider face is thought of as more masculine. Also, the horses are pointing differently, looking at each other, as in the case of the Cary-Yale, but like the Catania they are stylized horses symmetrical with each other. The Catania Charioteer--as well the Rosenwald Empress--might be descended from the cassone painting. Since cassoni were private, this might have been difficult unless there were a more public version, such as a playing card or a sketch.


Also speaking in favor of dal Ponte's having done triumphs, as opposed to other sorts of decks, are the general themes that dal Ponte took up for his cassoni: the seven virtues, Petrarch, Dante, a triumph. These are themes of the tarot as well. "Giovanni dal Ponte was interested in subjects of an allegorical sort," one writer has observed (Edward Kennard Rand, on p. 31 of "Dante and Petrarch in a Painting by Giovanni Dal Ponte", in Notes (Fogg Art Museum), 1:3, (Jan. 1923), pp. 25-33; in Jstor).

Rand's example is three panels that he thinks might have all been part of one cassone at one time. One part has the theme of the seven virtues, each with a patron and an angel.Below is from a Christie's auction in 2016 (http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/giovanni-dal-ponte-florence-1385-14378-the-seven-5986932-details.aspx).

Another part is the "seven liberal arts" (image from http://jeannedepompadour.blogspot.com/2 ... -1500.html):


The theme of the virtues is of course an important one in the tarot, not only the three of the standard tarot (justice, fortitude, temperance) but also the three theologicals, which appear in the Cary-Yale tarot of c. 1441 Milan, and also in minchiate, the expanded tarot originating in Florence. The fourth cardinal virtue, prudence, also makes an appearance in minchiate and is a name given to other cards, notably the Hanged Man (by negative example) in a couple of the versified lists, that of Imperiali and that of Alciati. Here is another example from dal Ponte, this one just of the theological virtues, on a cardinal's tomb in the Duomo of Florence:

Rand puts another panel, a narrower one of Dante and Petrarch (image from wikimedia commons), on the end of the cassone with the 7 liberal arts and the 7 virtues. he suggests for this last the theme of sacred vs. secular poetry. That also separates the four cardinal from the three theological virtues. Rand has a nice analysis of who the figures are accompanying which liberal art in the other panel, and similarly for the virtues, if anyone is interested.

The Fondazione Federico Zeri has a list of 77 of dal Ponte's works of all types, most with pictures, at: http://www.fondazionezeri.unibo.it/catalogo/ricerca.jsp?percorso_ricerca=OA&tipo_ricerca=semplice&decorator=layout&apply=true&mod_autore_OA=contiene&autore_OA=Giovanni+dal+Ponte&mod_titolo_OA=contiene&titolo_OA=&mod_tipo_OA=contiene&tipo_OA=&mod_data_OA=contiene&data_OA=&mod_localita_OA=contiene&localita_OA=&galleria=&ordine_OA=localizzazione.

Here are some other cassone paintings of his:

"Giardino d'Amore", at the Musée Jacquemart-André in Paris, dated there 1425-1437. I take this color reproduction from the 2016 catalog Giovanni Dal Ponte, published by the Accedemia Gallery in Florence for its exhibition of that name. They date it at 1430-1435. They date the two panels of the liberal arts and virtues in the same range, the panel of Dante and Petrarch.they date to c. 1430.

"Corte Nuziale",  http://www.fondazionezeri.unibo.it/cata ... eo+nuziale, dated there to 1425-1437.

"Scena di duello, Scena di caccia," http://www.fondazionezeri.unibo.it/cata ... +di+caccia, dated there to c. 1430 (below).

"Scene da una leggenda" (below) is the sole undivided cassone attributed to dal Ponte (by Christies, at least), in a collection in La Spezia. This image comes from the 2016 Catalog and dated by them at 1425-1437.

In this last, the hat of the standing figure in red is unusual in extant art of that time, but occurs also on the card Fiorini identifies as the Jack of Coins. I will discuss that and other comparisons between dal Ponte and Rothschild cards later, in connection with Bellosi, who historically was the first to connect dal Ponte with the cards. .

2C. THE GROVE ENCYCLOPEDIA AND FIORINI ON CASSONI

From tthe Grove Encyclopedia of the Decorative Arts, Vol. 2, ed. Gorden Campbell, in their entry on "cassone" (http://books.google.com/books?id=i3Od9b ... ne&f=false),I learn that there was another style of cassoni in the period in question besides the painted kind, namely, the "pastiglia" (p. 205). This was fine plaster molded into relief-like shapes and then gilded. It occurs to me that maybe in calling Antonio di Dino a "maestro di tavoli di gesso", as well as a "dipintore" they might have meant someone who made pastiglia as well as painted.

On another topic, what the Encyclopedia says on p. 204 is also of interest, as to the social context for cassoni:

The Late Gothic courtly style, introduced into Florence during the first decade of the 15th century, quickly made itself felt in the sphere of cassoni and continued to dominate the market for cassoni through the 1430s because its romanticism was ideally suited to marriage celebrations. The most common subjects were the Garden of Love and illustrations of novellas, such as Boccaccio's Cacchia di Diana (Florentine, late 14th century, Mus. Stibbert) and Ninfale fiesolano (Brunswick, ME, Bowdoin College Mus. of A.); others are tales of Classical heroines, such as Lucretia.

This of course is what dal Ponte's cassoni were for. This quote is a good lead-in to a long quotation from Fiorini regarding the Rothschild cards. My translation into English follows the Italian, together with the cards she is talking about (from http://larsdatter.com/games-card.htm):

Ma per quale occasione venne ideata la preziosa serie del Louvre?

Un interessante spunto di riflessione potrebbe essere offerto dai gusci a forma ditestuggine raffigurati sulle spalle del Re e della Donna di Bastoni, da interpretare non tanto in chiave araldica quanto allegorica.

Il simbolo della tartaruga è pregno di significati, per lo più di carattere positivo. Nel mondo antico, per esempio, l'animale era considerato simbolo di fecondità e perciò sacro ad Afrodite; al tempo stesso, per la lunga durata della sua vita, esso era anche considerato simbolo di salute, vitalità e immortalità. Secondo Plutarco rappresentava il modello della riservatezza femminile, mentre secondo Esopo simboleggiava la costanza. Dati i numerosiriferimenti a virtù femminili, la testuggine potrebbe indicare che destinatario delle carte fosse una donna, forse una giovane sposa, data l'usanza, nella società nobiliare quattrocentesca, di commissionare preziosi mazzi di tarocchi quali doni di nozze. La tartaruga, in questo caso, riassumerebbe in sé sia l'augurio alla donna di diventare generatrice di numerosa prole (simboleggiando la fecondità) sia il monito di custodire le virtù della riservatezza, della prudenza e della costanza che si addicono a una buona moglie.

Ora, tra i più importanti matrimoni celebrati a Firenze nei primissimi decenni del XV secolo, le fonti ricordano in particolare quello tra Cosimo de' Medici e Contessina de' Bardi (1415 ca) e quello tra Bartolomeo d'Ugho degli Alessandri e Costanza de' Bardi (1422). È su quest'ultimo matrimonio che vorrei in particolare concentrare l'attenzione: non solo perché lo stile delle carte sembra orientato, come già osservato in precedenza, agli anni venti del secolo, ma soprattutto perché lo zio di Costanza, Ilarione de' Bardi, viene ricordato in un documento per avere commissionato a Giovanni di Marco, proprio in occasione di queste nozze, due forzieri dipinti". La notizia è di estremo interesse, dal momento che si potrebbe a questo punto supporre che Giovanni, artista stimato dalla famiglia Bardi, sia stato interpellato non solo per la decorazione dei due cassoni nuziali, ma anche per l'esecuzione del mazzo di tarocchi. In questo modo, anche la presenza del fiorino d'oro raffigurato tra le mani dell'Imperatore acquisterebbe un preciso significato celebrativo della famiglia de' Bardi, una delle più ricche famiglie di banchieri di Firenze.

(But for what occasion was the valuable series in the Louvre conceived?

An interesting insight could be offered in the form of the tortoise shells depicted on the shoulders of the King and Queen of Batons, to be interpreted not so much a heraldic as an allegorical key.

The symbol of the turtle is full of meanings, mostly of a positive character. In the ancient world, for example, the animal was considered a symbol of fertility and therefore sacred to Aphrodite; at the same time, with the long duration of its life, it was also considered a symbol of health, vitality and immortality. According to Plutarch it represented the model of feminine confidence, while according to Aesop it symbolized constancy. Given the numerous references to feminine virtues, the tortoise could indicate that the recipient of the cards was a woman, perhaps a young bride, given the custom, in fifteenth-century aristocratic society, to commission such precious Tarot decks as wedding gifts. The turtle, in this case, summarizes the wish that the woman would become the generatrix of numerous offspring (symbolizing fertility) and is a warning to guard the virtues of reserve, prudence and constancy that befit a good wife.

Now, of the most important marriages in Florence in the early decades of the fifteenth century, the sources noted in particular that between Cosimo de' Medici and the Countess de' Bardi (ca 1415) and that between Bartolomeo d’Ugho Alessandri and Constance de' Bardi (1422). It is on this last wedding I would like to focus particular attention, not only because the style of the cards seems oriented, as noted earlier, to the twenties of the century, but especially since the uncle of Constance, Hilarion de' Bardi, is mentioned in a document as having commissioned from Giovanni di Marco, on the occasion of this marriage, two painted chests. The information is of extreme interest, since it may at this point support thatGiovanni, an artist esteemed by the Bardi family, has been asked not only for the decoration of the two wedding chests, but also for the execution of the tarot deck. In this way, even the presence of the gold florin depicted between the hands of the Emperor acquires a precise celebratory meaning in the de' Bardi family, one of the richest banking families in Florence.

Skipping for the moment Fiorini's earlier claim as to the dating of the cards, a problem here is her assumption that hand painted decks of cards were a customary marriage present in 15th century Florence. What is her evidence? Were even illuminated manuscripts. as is likely with the Visconti in Milan, given as marriage presents in Florence? If so, cards might be seen as a reasonable extension, and in fact in the case of the Cary-Yale have been, by me at least. But are there such cases in Florence? Also, were tortoises or tortoise shells in fact associated with marriage in Florence? Did they decorate cassoni and other known marriage gifts? I am not familiar with any.

It seems to me that if the tortoise shells had the symbolic meanings she ascribes to them, that would be enough to define a function for them, both on the card and for their owners. The Knight of Swords has two tortoise shells over him, while he himself is keeling over in his saddle (http://trionfi.com/0/c/p/rothknightswords.jpg). Yet the tortoise shells are there protecting him. They might then serve a kind of talisman for protection of its owner or his/her spouse. In the case of the King and Queen of Batons, they suggest their fertility and protection, and could be a talisman of fertility and protection to the owner, even if not given at the owner's marriage, just as the Botticelli La Primavera is thought to have hung in the couple's bedroom as a fertility talisman (although it probably was a marriage gift).

I think that the green gloves, sleeves, or leggings on some of the PMB cards (all the Baton courts, the Empress, the lady in the Love card, the Hanged Man) have a similar meaning.

However tortoise shells may well have had another meaning, related to the "Spanish" or "Moorish" cards of the day, on which more later.

Otherwise, what is of interest in Fiorini's remarks above is her delineation of the social circle that bought Dal Ponte's work: that of the richest banking families in Florence.

Question 3: The Knight of Batons

I turn now to my third issue, that of the Knight of Batons and the dal Ponte St. George on Horseback.

This St. Geroge, part of a small triptych, is one of the dal Ponte artworks that  Bellosi compared favorably to the Rothschild Knight of Batons. Ross, in reply, says:

The two figures share a striking similarity in that St. George is turned backwards. But in the manner of execution and compositional details, it seems evident even in the image as displayed on the internet that it is not the same draughtsman. Also, it surely can be argued that the narrow format of both the cards and the triptych caused their respective artists to economize space in this way.

When I compare the two, I see a similar overall design, with, as Ross noted, the backward thrusting of the Knight's spear. The horses have a similar narrow head, fat neck, and short forelegs on the horse. On the other hand, the Knight's horse's head is quite absurd, just a beak with eyes in back, on a massive neck. The artist would not be my choice to draw a favorite racehorse. Looking on the Internet at photos of rearing horses, it even seems like an impossible position for a horse. The realism of the horse's head and neck have been sacrificed for the sake of the rider. Whether it is a different draftsman from the St. George is hard for me to say; it might be that the artist wanted the rider to fit on the horse in a certain way and then make do with the rest.. 

Bellosi did not only compare the card to the St. George, but also to "two young dandies", seen below (reproduced from Bellosi 1985).  I see no difference between the draftsmanship of the young man closest to us and that of the Knight.

There are differences, to be sure: the intricate design on the Knight's doublet compared to the simpler one of the young man. But the face and the cut exposing the bottom half of the buttocks is the same, and perhaps these are what matters.

As for the narrow format causing the artists to "economize space" in the same way, it seems to me that the artist of the card made the knight larger than St. George is in the triptych, to emphasize him, with the result that the horse is squeezed into an impossible space.

There was apparently also a watercolor. Fiorini quotes Vasari (my translation follows):

«Nel nostro libro de' disegni di diversi, antichi e moderni, è un disegno d'acquerello di mano di Giovanni, dov'è un San Giorgio a cavallo che occide il serpente et un'ossatura di morto che fanno fede del modo e maniera, che aveva costui nel disegnare» 31.
________________________
31. G Vasari, Le vite de' più eccellenti pittori, scultori et architettori 1550-1567, II, Roma, 1991, pp. 223-224.

("In our book of drawings by diverse ancients and moderns there is a drawing in watercolor by the hand of Giovanni, wherein is a St. George on horseback who is slaying the serpent, and a skeleton, which bear witness to the method and manner that he had in drawing.")
__________________
31. G. Vasari, The lives of the most excellent painters, sculptors and architects 1550-1567, II, Rome, 1991, pp. 223-224.

The standard translation of Vasari has "Dragon" as the translation of "serpente" here; but the Italian word did not mean "dragon" that I can determine. It seems to me that on the card, likewise, what is depicted is a serpent rather than a dragon. If he was not trying to depict precisely St. George--hence the courtly attire--but rather a knight similar to St. George but killing a snake, then the watercolor could well have been a study for the card. (I don't understand the bit about the skeleton, the "ossatura di morte".) I suppose the watercolor could have been a study for the triptych (which also has no skeleton), but the less narrow space there, I think, would have more likely led to something more conventional. It is the quite narrow space of the card that would seem to dictate the unique design.

Estimates on the date of the triptych vary. The Columbia (South Carolina), Museum of Art, where it is preserved, estimates it as 1425. The Nov. 2016 catalog to the dal Ponte exhibition at the Galleria dell'Academia (p. 190) estimates it as 1415-1420. The same catalog estimates the one member of the cards on exhibit there (the Knight of Swords) as c. 1425, with a question mark next to dal Ponte's name.

Question 4: The Faces

Now I am ready for my fourth issue, Ross's comparison of faces between the Rothschild and da Ponte's work. Here are Ross's heads and initial observations, from http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php? ... stcount=23

I shared these thoughts first with Michael Hurst, and he looked too; then he looked more precisely at some of what was available of Giovanni on the web, and the Rothschild cards, and came up with this collage of facial comparisons:



The top nine images are from the Rothschild cards; the bottom fourteen are from three works of Giovanni -

1---2---3---4
----------7--
5---6-------8
9----10---11
--12---13---14

Reading them as the numbers above, they are -

1 and 9: Two evangelists, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, SK-A-3979 and 3980 (35x14cm), dated 1410-1435

2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8: Ascension of St. John the Evangelist, National Gallery, London, NG580 (triptych, 207x250 cm), dated 1410-1420.

10, 11, 12, 13, 14: Coronation of the Virgin, Galleria dell'Accademia, Firenze (couldn't find the catalogue number or size), no date found.

Giovanni's facial proportions and style remains consistent from large to small works, and across time.

Comparing with the card's faces and heads, it doesn't seem to be the same style. Particularly noteworthy are the presence of well-formed ears in Giovanni's paintings, whereas in the cards there are few and they are little more than circles.

Also, the faces are squat, and the noses are not long in the cards, whereas all of Giovanni's faces have very long noses.

The particular way of indicating curls in beards and hair isn't so similar between the two in this side-by-side comparison.

There are no women's heads in the selection from Giovanni: they are all bearded men. When I look up dal Ponte's works on the Internet, it seems to me that women's heads are more elongated, just as in the cards, e.g. at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... roject.jpg, a work estimated to be from 1410-1419. St. Catherine's is, too, along with the female angels, at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... herine.jpg. But the older woman in the middle has a rounder face. That's the Late Gothic style: young women are portrayed with lean, oval faces, and high foreheads; men and older women are portrayed rounder. You will see the same in Michelino and other Late Gothic artists. Younger, clean shaven men will be portrayed somewhere in the middle.

Ross contrasts the consistency of Bembo's heads in his pack (I assume the PMB) and all the rest of his work with the inconsistency of the Rothschild. To me that is a sign that the Rothschild is considerably earlier than the PMB. If you look at the Cary-Yale, you will see all sorts of heads.

The young man in armor here gets an oval, too, suggesting that he is thinner. It is an example of Late Gothic, which lasted longer in Milan than it did in Florence. All the same, by the time of the PMB, painting had become a science in the tradition of Alberti's "On Painting", as well as an art: hence the greater consistency of the PMB.

About the long noses, I don't see many "very long" ones in dal Ponte, although admittedly most are not short. In the Truimph of Fame, the noses aren't long at all:

However, this cassone is not securely by dal Ponte. Other art that is more securely his, however, does show both long and short noses, e.g.St Peter below, with what I assume is an angel (detail reproduced from 2016 Catalog p. 24). There are other examples, usually angels or soldiers. Another example would be the "two dandies" mentioned by Bellosi and posted here in connection with the Knight of Batons.



It is true that long noses predominate in dal Ponte's art, especially in biblical scenes. One reason may be to suggest a positive view of Jews as the people of Christianity's origin. In the 1420s and after, the ruling families wanted the presence of Jewish moneylenders to be accepted in Florence. They performed functions the Christian bankers did not care to do and would be a source of revenue. Jews in fact first entered in 1427, according to Tuscan Jewish Itineraries, with three pawn shops, "a move which marked the beginning of the Jewish community in that city" (p. 143). Such a setting would not apply to the cards (or to figures in the art not imagined in a Jewish milieu, such as angels).

Finally, there is the manner of drawing ears and beards. One is the Queen of Batons, http://www.photo.rmn.fr/LowRes2/TR1/PG0 ... 000752.jpg. But it may be that this is only the bottom of her ear, the rest covered by hair. Dal Ponte does that some of the time in his paintings. In the King of Coins, it looks like part of the ear is covered by his hat, http://www.photo.rmn.fr/LowRes2/TR1/8JM ... 000755.jpg. But the Jack of Coins' ear is indeed rather weak, merely a circle (http://trionfi.com/0/c/p/rothpope.jpg)/. If you notice, the Cary-Yale court cards don't have prominent ears either. Ears perhaps were considered inelegant in a courtly, secular setting. There can be other reasons for the little circles that do for ears in two of the cards: dal Potne was not used to the small size of the cards and found it difficult to make the ears look realistic; or he was in a rush and wasn't getting paid much; or he gave that detail to an assistant.

As far as the beards, some of the Rothschild cards have white squiggles down them, unlike the paintings. Late Gothic art has a playful side, like the outlandish hats that are sometimes shown, especially on men, in say Pisanello (http://jeannepompadour.tumblr.com/post/ ... -falcon-by). The cards are for entertainment. You're supposed to enjoy the tortoise shell shields and the lacy outfits and tight tights on the young men. The squiggles on the beards fall in that category, and they complement the strong lines of the clothing. It is part of his "cursive" style that art historians have noted. There are also squiggly beards on known paintings of dal Ponte's workshop, most notably the frescoes in a family chapel shown and documented in the 2016 Catalog p. 23): The work in this chapel is documented in a notarial contract for 1429, extended by one month in June of 1432 (Nov. 2016 Catalog, pp. 200, 229, and 231-2; for detailed quotations see http://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1005&start=80).


And in general, hair is highlighted by broad strokes, as in the detail of St. Peter above.

In a few cases the similarity of the faces.is quite striking, as in a comparison between the Emperor and dal Ponte's St. Benedict brings out (below, taken from Bellosi):



On Fieroni's side there is also the fallback position: dal Ponte may have had an assistant doing much of the work, working from da Ponte's sketches and creating the details himself. If both cassoni and the deck were for the same occasion (a wedding), he may have been too busy painting cassoni.

In other words, the differences in the faces (whoever the artist) tend only to show that the cards are solidly Late Gothic, the style in Florence up to the mid to late 1420s, which gradually transitioned to Renaissance style by 1440. Dal Ponte did incorporate some aspecs of this new style in the late 1420s, according to the 2016 catalog essay by Sbaraglio, but in general his work remains solidly Late Gothic. In general the similarities to the cards outweigh the differences. ..

There is, to be sure, a conservatism in card-making, a tendency to stick closely to what came before. But when is that "before"? I propose that it's when the style was in fashion. I'll say more later, when I have the two Emperors side by side.
.

The cards as woodcuts

The Rothschild cards were printed first and then painted,  according to Gerardo Ortalli in "The Prince and the Playing Cards Ludica, annali di storia e civiltà del gioco 2, 1996, p. 194 (I thank as "Huck" on Tarot History Forum for this reference, given at http://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1005&start=10#p14986). There are clearly lines on the cards in addition to the painted areas, visible for example on the Knight of Swords, here; but are these from woodcuts?  Fiorini disagrees, in footnote 3, p. 54:

Ho potuto verificare personalmente la tecnica esecutiva delle carte, che non presentano traccia alcuna di incisione, grazie alla cortesia di Pascal Torres, conservatore presso il Cabinet Rothschild. Ringrazio per i preziosi consigli anche Alberto Milano e Thierty Depaulis che, dopo un recente sopralluogo presso la collezione del Lortvre, ha gentilmente confermato la mia ipotesi.

[3. I was able personally to verify the techniques of the cards, which do not show any trace of incision, through the courtesy of Pascal Torres, curator of the Cabinet Rothschild. Thanks to Alberto Milano for valuable advice and to Thierry Depaulis, who, after a recent inspection of the collection at the Louvre, has kindly confirmed my hypothesis.]  . 

I do not know if that settles the issue or not. Depaulis is probably the leading authority on such cards currently, which surely counts for something. But when did woodcuts first appear in Florence?

Ortalli does not give any dates other than before 1476. But when Bernardino preached against cards in 1424 Bologna, he probably had in mind cheap ones, because that's what his audience would have used.

According to Arthur Hind, An introduction to the history of woodcut, 1935, p. 96, the first extant dated woodcut is a Madonna of 1418 Flanders, followed by a St. Christopher of 1423 Augsburg. These are sacred images, worthy of being preserved; cards weren't. Given the popularity of cards, and the conservatism of monks, I would guess that cards were earlier than these sacred productions. About playing cards from woodcuts, Hind says (p. 84):

In the first place the production of playing-cards must have been a thriving industry, especially at Ulm (2), at the end of the XIV and beginning of the XV century. In spite of the fact that no existing pack of cards can be dated with any certainly before about 1450, this does not rule out the probability of woodcuts having been used by about 1400, if not earlier, in their production.
________________
2. See Felix Fabri, Tractatus de Civitate Ulmensi, herausgegeben von G. Veesenmeyer, Litterarisches Verein in Stuttgart 1889, pp. 145, 146.

Hind adds (p. 84) that

Through the very nature of their use cards are the most unlikely things to be preserved.

Prints on paper can also be dated by their style. Hind observes (p. 79):

It seems unlikely that any large supplies of paper were available before the latter part of the XIV century 2, and this was probably an important factor in determining the period at which the printing of pictures was introduced. Judged from the style of their design, the woodcuts which appear to the be the earliest printed on paper should be dated about 1400, hardly later, and hardly more than ten or twenty years earlier.

On woodcut-produced cards in Italy, there is also documentation. Here is Hind p. 80:

Kristeller notes a certain Federico de Germania who sold cartas figuratas et pictas ad imagines et figures sanctorum at Bologna in 1395, and a card-maker (pittor di naibi) of Florence, Antonio di Giovanni di Ser Francesco, who declares among his property in 1430 'wood blocks for playing-cards and saints'. 3.
_______________________
Kupferstich und Holzschnitt, 1922, pp. 20 and 21. There is no proof that Federico de Germania printed his cards from blocks, but as the document in which he is mentioned is an action against him for coining false money, Kristeller thinks it highly probable that a die-cutter would have been equally conversant with block-cutting. It is worth noting in this relation a fact emphasized by Bouchot (Ancetre de la gravure su bois/i], p. 22) that in France early woodcuts seem to have sometimes been regarded as [[i]malfacons (contraband), a sort of false coin in the eyes of the build of Imagiers.

Hind goes on to note, of course, St. Bernardino's diatribe in 1424 to persuade the players to burn their cards. We have no way of knowing, to be sure, how common these cards were at the time.
 Another woodcut is dated to 1428 (Grove Encyclopedia of Medieval Art and Architecture, Volume 2, by Colum Hourihane, p. 409, in Google Books); it is a "Virgin of the Fire", 1428, revered because it was saved from a fire, Hourihane says. It is not in the International Gothic sylte, so its authenticity has been doubted; Hourihane, however, sees affinities with the facial features of early Venetian art and of a woodcut of The Trinity with Saints.

One way in which prints on paper from woodblocks might have been produced early on is from the woodblocks used for making textile prints. We know about them from the numerous Late Gothic depictions of sumptuously decorated clothing, including that depicted in the painted part of the Rothschild cards. Hind observes that textile printing was common throughout the middle ages, although not with pictured figures until the second half of the 14th century (p. 67). He gives numerous examples on textiles from about 1400. He adds (p. 69):

The printers of textiles may also have sometimes pulled impressions on paper as patterns, and some of the earliest prints on paper (known for the most part only in single impressions) may have been made for this purpose.

He gives several examples; the only problem is that there is no extant corresponding textile, so this use is only "probable". I would imagine that such a "probable" use would apply in Florence, which it is my impression was even in the early 15th century a center of textile production..

Spanish suited cards & Question 5: the date

Before going on to the fifth issue that I stated at the beginning of the thread, I want to address an issue that I was not aware of initially, namely, that of the influence of Spanish-suited cards on the Rothschild. This issue was discussed on the ATF thread but I want to add some things. The most thorough starting point is on Andy's Playing Cards, the "Ferrara" page (http://l-pollett.tripod.com/cards89.htm).

First, the Rothschild has a bearded Page of Coins, a rather unusual feature in Italian pages, which are typically presented as young and beardless:

Andy comments:

...this is not a unique feature: in fact, a similar one is found in the so-called Italy 2 cards (after their catalogue number in the Fournier Museum of Alava, Spain), an archaic Latin-suited pattern of Moorish inspiration, surely earlier than the RS by several decades, which testifies the existence of bearded knaves at an early stage of Western playing card history.

On Andy's "Italy 2" page (http://l-pollett.tripod.com/cards77.htm), it is the Page of Batons that wears the beard.



Beards are also on the Knight and King of Swords.

There is also, in the Rothschild, the double-shell tortoise shield of the Knight of Swords. It has more significance than just protection. Andy says:

This particular shape, and the position it is held in, are both very similar to the shield carried by the Moorish cavalier of Swords in the aforesaid Italy 2 deck.

Here it is:


Ross, at http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php? ... stcount=69, says, based on this resemblance, that the Knight of Swords is a defeated Saracen. Andy's page on the Italy 2 tends to support that:

The cavalier of Swords is also a Moor; note the pointed cap and the shield, both in the fashion of the Saracens, although the blade of the sword is not curved.

"Andy's playing cards" (http://l-pollett.tripod.com/cards77.htm) suggests, based apparently on the apparel, that cards of such design were fairly common throughout a wide area. In fact in the Fournier museum in Spain they are called "Italy 2", about which Andy says:

Despite the museum's catalogue reference of this deck is Italy 2, it may come from anywhere within a wide area, now corresponding to Spain, northern Italy, southern France, Switzerland, and south-western Germany. It was found in Seville, and the only country where the same composition is used is Spain, but some scholars claim that the cap featured on the ace of Coins is consistent with a north-eastern Italian origin, while others identify the clothes worn by the courts as German.
...
The cavalier of Swords is also a Moor; note the pointed cap and the shield, both in the fashion of the Saracens, although the blade of the sword is not curved. A cavalier of Swords from the mid 1500s, wearing more generically a Moorish turban, is also found in the German Playing-card Museum of Leinfelden, and even among the patterns still in use traces of this personage can be found, giving enough evidence that this used to be a rather common subject.

Such cards undoubtedly would have passed through Florence. Andy gives c. 1400 as the date by which these cards were diffused beyond Spain. Ross explains further that an article by Michael Dummett in 1991 shows that the paper is dated to around 1400. He adds ((http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=1330082&postcount=69)::

Thierry Depaulis also independently confirms the scientific information of the paper's dating in his article "L'Apparition de la xylographie et l'arrivée des cartes à jouer en Europe" (Nouvelles de l'Estampe nos. 185-6, Dec. 2002-Fev. 2003, pp. 7-19) p. 18; here he cites Dr. José Eguia, director of the Fournier Museum of Playing Cards in Vitoria, Spain, where this set is located).

In Florence, one artist who would have known the meaning of the odd shields, that they were Saracen/Moorish, was Starnina, who returned to Florence from a stay in Valencia in 1401. At some point (he is said to have died in 1413) he even did a cassone, as Fiorini points out. 

Facilmente documentabile in dipinti di matrice spagnola, non lo è altrettanto nell'arte italiana: l'unico esempio che sono riuscita a reperire è rappresentato dalla Battaglia tra Orientali conservata nel Museo di Altenburg ed eseguita da Gherardo Stamina. Notizia di scarso interesse se npn fosse che l'artista in questione, attivo a Firenze dopo un lungo soggiorno a Valencia, fu il principale maestro di Giovanni di Marco, il quale potrebbe essersi ispirato allo Stamina per l'inserimento di questo colto riferimento.

(Easily documented in paintings of the Spanish matrix, it is not so in Italian art: the only example I could find is represented by the Battle among Orientals preserved in the Museum of Altenburg done by Gherardo Starnina. The artist in question made news of little interest; active in Florence after a long stay in Valencia, he was the main master of Giovanni di Marco, who may have been inspired by Starnina for the inclusion of this cultural reference.)

 Ross posts an image of this "Battaglia tra Orientali" (Battle between Orientals) in the same ATF post, of which a partial view below shows the detail of the shield. :

Ross objects to Fiorini's attempt to connect the presence of the shields in the Rothschild with dal Ponte via Starnina:

It could well be that the Rothschild artist intended to portray this figure as a defeated Saracen (giving us an opportunity to interpret the St. George-like portrayal of the Knight of Batons as slaying the Saracen dragon), and it could well be that the artist was drawing from a tradition known through Aragonese cards and/or artistic convention; but given that such a tradition did in fact exist among cardmakers, and the differences in the style of the two printed cards and the painted one, it seems to me unnecessary to posit a direct link of the Rothschild to the work of Gherardo Starnina, through Giovanni del Ponte.

That is certainly true. The cards were known independently of Starnina and so do not need a painter intimately connected with him. However it remains true that dal Ponte was greatly influenced by Starnina and probably knew him personally. The connection is reiterated by Lorenzo Sbaraglio in "Lo sviluppo (altalenante) dello stile di Giovanni dal Ponte", in the Nov. 2016 catalog (pp. 13-14).

La situazione per Giovanni, e per tanti altri artisti fiorentini e toscani, cambiò di li a breve col ritorno di Gherardo Starnina dalla Spagna, probabilmente non molto dopo il luglio 1401, quando è ricordato per l’ultima volta a Valencia. Nelle sue primissime opere Giovanni dal Ponte sembra innestare su una solida base trecentesca lo stile di Starnina (fig. 3): le lumeggiature ottenute sinteticamente con pochi tocchi di pennello, i colori accesi, una certa insistenza grafica sui tratti principali del viso, che delimitano incarnati modulati dolcemente. Giovanni riprende anche dei veri e propri “tic” tipici dello Starnina, quali la maniera di lumeggiare la canna del naso con una dritta linea bianca che si addensa sulla punta, o i dentiche talvolta emergono tra le labbra schiuse per rafforzare, l’espressione dei volti (fig. 5); elementi che Giovanni [start 14] riprende in maniera tanto fedele da lasciar sospettare che il contatto col pittore tornato dalla Spagna potesse essere stato assai stretto. Dell'arte di Starnina, più in generale, il pittore dovette apprezzare lo spirito vitale, colorato, accostante, giocoso e profano, caratteristiche che in Giovanni si trasformano progressivamente in uno stile più drammatico e concitato, energico e corsivo.

[The situation for Giovanni, and for many other Florentine and Tuscan artists, changed shortly after the return of Gherardo Starnina from Spain, probably not long after July 1401, when he is recorded for the last time in Valencia. In his first few works Giovanni dal Ponte seems to graft the style of Starnina onto a solid trecento basis (fig. 3): the highlights synthetically obtained with a few brush strokes, bright colors, some graphic insistence on key facial features that delimit embodied softly modulated. Giovanni also incorporates a real "tick" typical of Starnina in such manner highlighting the nose rod with a straight white line that thickens at the tip, or the teeth that sometimes emerge between lips parted for strengthening the expression of the faces (fig. 5); elements that John [start 14] resumes in a manner so faithful as to allow one to suspect that the contact with the painter returned from Spain could have been very tight. From the art of Starnina, more generally, the painter had to appreciate his vital spirit, colorful, pulled together, playful and profane, characteristics that in Giovanni are turned into a more dramatic and agitated style energetic and cursive.]

I didn't make jpgs of figs. 3-5 (two Madonna and Childs plus some musician angels. Maybe tomorrow. Figs. 6-7 give some of the idea. These are pre-1415, before he developed his own unique style (which is what is reflected in the cards)


QUESTION FIVE: Can the style of the cards be dated specifically to the 1420s as opposed to the 1450s-1460s?

Ross wrote

Compare the Charles VI lines with the Rothschild cards' (particularly hands and faces). I think appeals to generic style is a blunt way to date objects; it might only work within less than a couple of decades at best, unless you already have the artist pegged. Do you want to push Charles VI back to the 1420s or 30s just because it isn't an example of the latest style in Florentine taste in art?

More likely, cards are quick and cartoon like; they don't really reflect the dominant, let alone the avant garde, style in art. Bembo's are exceptional, in being specific commissions in a traditional style for a specific patron; Charles VI and Rothschild may be high-end retail objects, dedicated to no particular person. And even if they were, how do we know that they wanted the "new" style? Playing cards generally don't break ground in art.

I certainly don't want to push the Charles VI back in time! Probably the best comparison will be with the Emperor cards, since the subjects are the same (higher res at http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-CNly6whjDyE/U ... hVIEmp.jpg).



The Rothschild on our left is Late Gothic, the Charles VI on the right firmly Renaissance. On the left, the figure of the Emperor is generally flat, except for the folds in the tunic, for which da Ponte and other Late Gothic artists knew how to create depth by means of shading. The arm reaching for the scepter is especially awkward, as well as its connection to the hand grasping it. In contrast, the one on the right has volume, due to knowledge of perspective, and the arm is more natural, with the hand clearly part of the arm. On the left we see the usual fine details we expect in Late Gothic fabric depiction. On the right, there is less attention to the fabric (except on one of the pages!). Fancy clothing was out of fashion by its time. What remains is homage to past Emperor cards and to emperor's exalted status. The two little figures below the right-hand Emperor are done without any sense of being physically part of the scene. That is a medieval strategy. On the right, the two figures have been changed to boys, so that physically the whole scene is believable. (I am not sure how they manage to kneel on air, but I am not saying the artist was perfect.) Also the way the two boys line up shows a knowledge of single-point perspective with a vanishing point inside the frame. That is lacking on the left. Also, the head of the boy in back is slightly smaller than that of the one in front, also creating an illusion of depth. The platform also has depth, lacking on the left. And the Emperor himself is placed diagonally to the plane of the frame, rather than parallel or perpendicular to it, creating depth. The net result is a Renaissance image on the right, a late-medieval image on the left. The change was sudden, starting with Masaccio and Brunelleschi in Florence, and probably a similar trend in Bruges, although it isn't documented there until around 1433 with van Eyck. Some people (e.g. Hockney) speculate that it had to do with the development of large lenses for focusing images that could be traced (which is not to say that these marvelous paintings are just tracings; it is more that they show a new way of seeing.)

Yes, some people might have preferred the old style. But there is no indication that such was true of the most influential families in Florence. The new style was seen as magical, almost miraculous, like having the person in front of one, writers said. An artist who had mastered it would not want it to appear that he hadn't. Although there is an inherent conservatism in card designs, the Charles VI Emperor shows what could be done with an old pattern. Even while in the new style, it was late enough so that it is not at all ground-breaking. Some artists did have trouble with the new style. That may be why the Catania looks more medieval than the Charles VI (flat, less realistic)--or, although done in Florence, was for a family outside of Florence (i.e. Alessandro Sforza) who would hae wanted its cards more Gothic, as in Milan. Or perhaps in fact it was done earlier than usually supposed, even in the 1430s. A recent Playing Card article reports that pieces of paper used as filler in two of the Catania deck's cards (one of which is in Palermo) have the dates 1427 and 1428 written on them. But even the Catania, unlike the Rothschild, shows knowledge of the principle of one-point perspective (the Chariot). Nothing is definite, to be sure, as we don't know the particular circumstances for any of these decks. We can only judge by what is known in relation to other things known..

In this spirit, it is worth looking at the dates that have been assigned to the work of dal Ponte's that is most comparable to the cards. The triptych with St. George is assigned by the Columbia (South Carolina) Museum of Art to c. 1425. The Nov. 2016 catalog gives it to 1415-1420. Neither place gives any reason for their dating. I don't think it matters, because the other comparable art is mostly after 1425. The Santa Trinita fresco with the squiggly bears on St. Benedict is 1429-1432. Other work at St. Trinita, less "cursive", is 1434; both are documented as to date and workshop.. The "two dandies" (here) is in the 2016 Catalog's estimate, "1425-1430".  The predella with St. Anthony Abbot, so similar to the Emperor in the face (here), is "1425-1530".  In allegorical art, the only paintings of the workshop similar in subjects to the tarocchi are the 7 virtues and 7 liberal arts, which the Catalog dates to "1430-1435". So it is possible by stylistic and subject considerations to make the date of the cards, if by the dal Ponte workshop, extend to 1430-1435..

There is also the question of whether it is a regular deck, an imperatori, or a tarocchi. The late 1420s or early 1430s is not too early for any of these. The Catania paper has the dates 1427 and 1428 in the filler for two of the cards. DDD in 1996 said the tarocchi could be as early as 1410. Prince Fibbia, who the subscript on a 17th century portrait said invented the tarocchini (as the Bolognese tarocchi was then called), died in 1419 (see Andrea Vitali at http://www.associazioneletarot.it/page.aspx?id=107&lng=ENG) . The Marziano "game of the gods" is 1418-1425, and Marziano was succeeded in his position by the father of a man who published a lengthy commentary on Petrarch's Trionfi (see http://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1130&p=18314&hilit=commentary+trionfi+Petrarch#p18314). There are considerations that suggest the 1428 marriage for the CY-type, if there was one: the banner on the tent, which could be Savoy, as the alternation of banners suggests among other things the union of two houses; also, Filippo finishing an illuminated manuscript of his father's, by a young painter who could easily have been prevailed upon to do cards. Surely 1430-1435 is not too early in Florence, for an elite stratum of the population, and perhaps not including all 22 of the cards but only 14 or 16.