Mantegna-Tarocchi-engraver? Sweynheim, Pannartz, Bocking?

Huck

24-02-2005, 06:44

Lothar (autorbis) wrote the following in the groups LTarot and TarotL:
---------------------------------------

Hind in his article about the Mantegna article comes in his final passage to this opinion:

"On the other hand there is a close similarity between the present series and the engraved maps of the Ptolemy printed at Rome in 1478. The precise cutting of the maps and the representation of forests and hills are closely related in style. If the engraver of these maps is identified, some solution might be found for the engraver of the socalled Tarocchi might have undertaken the work of the Roman printer."

From my own researches to Lazzarelli's life, his connections to the Accademia Romana and my consideration, that Hind made a wrong conclusion about his Mantegna-Tarocchi-origin "around 1465", it seems promising to search for the origin of the final set at a later time than 1465 and in a connection to Lazzarelli and especially in Rome, cause that's the place, which seems to be focused.

So two suspicions (Hind's and mine) meet here, although I contradict Hind in his basic assumptions.

Hind's citation above looks, as if the producer of the Ptolemy is completely unknown. However, it isn't and as it seems, not since young times, so I do wonder, why Hind speaks in this way.

The Ptolemy from 1478 has the following story: Conrad Sweynheim and Arnold Pannartz are two printers, which left Mainz 1462 and reached Subiaco near Rome in 1464/1465. They are called the "first printers in Italy".
Here they started to print, and after 3 years they moved to Rome. This is parallel to a development, in which the current pope Paul II. threw a lot of writers out of their jobs. But: it's also said, that Paul II. reacted with enthusiasm about the printing machine .... So it seems, that Paul II. realised, that he had too much writers and would need in future more printers, this administative action seems to be part of a media revolution. The writers lost their jobs and their protest did lead to the attack against the Accademia Romana.

Pannartz and Sweynheim printed and printed. However, the Pope died in 1471. Sixtus IV was elected, and 1472 a letter is known, in which the bishop of Aleria, Johannes Andreae reported to the pope about difficulties of the printers - they had made 28 editions and more than 12000 books ... and now they had difficulties, sitting on all this printed papers. Likely is, that Paul II has guarenteed to buy books and the new pope Sixtus didn't fulfill earlier promises, as it often happens in printing business.

The problem solved in a specific way. Pannartz kept to the printing business, but Sweynheim turned to the production of a single book since 1473, the mentioned Ptolemy, together with a very active editor of other books, Domitius Calderinus.
The names Calderinus and Andrae appear together already in the mid of 14th century, when an Anreae of some fame adopted a Calderinus, so this new appearance of an Andreae(= bishop of Aleria)-Calderinus-combination in Sweynheim-context seems to point to old familiary connections, which haved worked here.

Conrad Sweynheim died, Domitian Calderinus died, Pannartz died, either in 1475, 1476, 1477, 1478. The informations are unclear. A peste is mentioned in Rome 1475/76, Regiomontanus died with it (in the case, he wasn't poisoned by the sons of Trapezunt) and Regiomontanus was also in the printing business. It stays, that in October 1478 an Arnold Bucking was in possesssion of the Ptelomy-prints, which were a finer edition than that illustrated by the Ferrarese Crivelli in Bologna one year before. One theory assumes, that Arnold Bucking was just a second name for Arnold Pannartz.
Who was the engraver? It seems that Sweynheim and Bucking in assistance did the work.

It seems unlikely, that Hindn't did have any information about Sweynheim, cause the story is reproted in older German books, it is not new research, so perhaps his text contains at other place an information, why he considers the engraver of the Ptolemy a mystery.

Till ca. 1480 and a little later there are no printings of Mantegna Tarocchi extant - beside four printings of the cardinal virtues in a manuscript of St. Gallen, written in the year 1468. 4 printed virtues do not give evidence for 50 fulldeveloped socalled Mantegna Tarocchi prints.

Printers usually do not act creative, but reproduce already existent art and writing. It was normal to them to copy something. When for instance Sweynheim made the Mantegna-Tarocchi in 1475, most motifs would have already existed with the Lazzarelli manuscript. From the Emperor motif we know, that it was used in an illuminated manuscript in Bologna 1467.

Calderinus, Sweynheim's Italian partner in the late years, commented a text, which was also commented by Giorgios Merula, Lazzarelli's earlier teacher. That's the only possible connection between the group of printers and Lazzarelli's world, that I detected, but perhaps others. However, Calderinus was an active book editor, who participated in a lot of printing productions - such people have a lot of contacts, and they're naturally searched by poets and other persons in the literary business.

There might have been some hostility between printers and people, who earned their money by copying texts by hand, naturally. As Rome should have had a lot of these persons ....

The prints of Sweynheim and Pannartz and later the prints of Pannartz alone were made in the Palazzo Massimo, the house of two knights, Pietro and Francesco Massimo. The house was destroyed during the Sacco di Roma 1527, nowadays there is another new Palazzo Massimo.

--------------------

The expanding articles to the theme Lazzarelli and the Mantegna Tarocchi (still in an unsorted order) are located in provisonal form at:

http://trionfi.com/0/gg/

wandking

24-02-2005, 07:27

Fulgour

24-02-2005, 07:41

spec and stet

Huck

24-02-2005, 10:35

Hi Huck,

I'm fascinated with your previous account, with most of the conclussions well-founded. I do take issue with this sentance, "Printers usually do not act creative, but reproduce already existent art and writing." Having worked extensivly in and around the print industry for much of my life, I find not only press operators but also most individuals associated with the print industry extremely "creative," with strong backgrounds in graphic deign and art. If anything press operators of that time, which I consider as more or less a one man dog and pony show, were even more creative, making the assumption unsafe. A press operator who fails to act creativly doesn't last long in the profession.

The usual situation of the printer is, that somebody comes and says: "I wish it so and so ...". Inside this paid program the printer has some freedom, but, although the printer develops great technical experience and aesthetic, there's somebody else, who gives idea and money.
But the actual question is, who made the Mantegna Tarocchi. We see, that Lazzarelli probably collected pictures (the report says, he found them in a bookstore, but it stays unclear, if he found all in a book store and it's unclear, if this were illumination, woodcut prints, copperplate prints, pen paintings).
We know from the Lazzarelli manuscript, that - if the theory is right - the later engraver simply copied Lazzarelli's collected pictures, but with good technique, perhaps made them look more excellent than the original by superieur technique. So the "first creativity" was somewhere else - and that's the usual printing business.

wandking

24-02-2005, 10:51

Cerulean

24-02-2005, 11:23

can be used as a beginning point in certain descriptions.

You are correct, others have used Vasari as a fully reliable resource. But I've grown to suspect his descriptions because in classes and independent reading in regards to Italian Renaissance art, I have found more doubt of accuracy in Vasari's poetic descriptions of artists such as Raphael, Michaelangelo, Pontarmo.

In terms of certain playing card histories of the so-called Mantegna, including the booklet by esoteric author Giorgio Tavaglione for Dal Negro's reproduction set of the 50 card set, I realize that the alternate suggestion of the engraver Baldini seems to be relying on 'another source' that I cannot prove yet. But I tend to agree with the following reviews and have the Dal Negro reproduction of the deck.

Andy's Playing Card web discussion:

http://l-pollett.tripod.com/cards27.htm

Mark Filipas' review of the Dal Negro reproduction:

http://www.spiritone.com/~filipas/Masquerade/Reviews/mantegna.html

And what I have read of Huck and Autorbis, they have awareness of Vasari and tend to go further to find other resources, images and suggestions.

I am not certain that answers your question directly?

Best regards,

Cerulean

wandking

24-02-2005, 12:05

the andy site writes:

Among the most interesting engraving works of the Renaissance is a set of illustrations, datable around 1460-70, for which the famous Italian artist Andrea Mantegna (1431-1503) had been traditionally credited. Although being an accurate work of art, most scholars reject this theory. In fact, such engravings are not mentioned by any record except one important source, Giorgio Vasari's Lives of the Most Eminent Architects, Painters and Sculptors... (1550), where a passage about Mantegna reads: "He fancied making copper prints, as Pollaiolo did, and among other works he made his trionfi, and they were then kept into account, because no better ones had been seen".

In spite of Vasari's report, though, the actual author of these illustrations is likely to remain unknown; names such as Michele Parrasio (from the School of Ferrara), Baccio Baldini, or a number of 's followers have been suggested, but no proof can be given.
Not even the purpose of this set is clear; the only surviving specimens are uncut sheets, known as...

The main point with all the sites I've seen on the topic don't explain or offer why the images bear the name Mantegna or when this change in crediting him with the work took place. To me it's like news... you know the old Who? What? When? Where? and Why? approach: For example, who are these "scholars" that reject this theory... Why are the images called Mantenga if they are not by him and When did this "theory" arise? Last but not least: Do you have any ideas about specific evidence that leads them to believe the images are not by Mantenga?

Huck

25-02-2005, 02:42

I am aware some writers suggest that the engravings are not by Andrea Mantegna, who lived from 1432 until 1506 CE. Are you familiar with – Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects, first published in 1550 and revised in 1568 CE by Giorgio Vasari? Doesn't it state that he made copper engravings of trionfi, which "were considered to be perfect," as no better ones were known? If not, why do images bear his name?

The opinion, that the Mantegna Tarocchi was named this way, but that it was not by Mantegna, existed according to Hind already at the end of 19th century.
Mantegna research had the problem, that a lot of engravings were sold with his name, but definitely was not from his hand. Also Mantegna paintings were often copied as engravings - by others. There is even a letter from 2 painter/engravers, who were attacked by Mantegna, cause they copied Mantegna's pictures (1475). The process of "forging Mantegna" already started in his lifetime. So art history had a lot to do to defend against "wrong claims" - of course it's not sure, that they were correct in all their judgments.
Vasari spoke of engravings and Trionfi, not from Trionfi playing cards. Mantegna painted the Trionfo of Caesar - a very large object. These paintings - according to art history - were engraved by others (the engravings still exist). Vasari might have spoken - for instance - of this engravings - but ... Vasari spoke of this paintings, too, and he didn't say, that the engravings showed this scenes.
Engravings specialists know a lot about engraving techniques and by this specific knowledge - probably only possible, when you've seen a lot of engravings - they think to be able to "recognize engravers", which is large problem with many solution-suggestions, cause a lot of engravers only are known by their work and not by name or biography. So you've a lot of unknown masters, "Master of the playing cards", "Master of the Bandelore", Master E.S" etc, that's very common.

So, simply pointing to Vasari and the name "Mantegna-Tarocchi" doesn't develop a really new argument, that Mantegna was the relevant engraver.

Hind - who saw a lot of engravings - says, cause of "technical reasons" it's unlikely that the E-series of the Mantegna-Tarocchi developed before 1460. This judgment seems to be based on observable and datable progress in copperplate engraving. Cause of 2 documents (1467/68) and the Lazzarelli manuscript from ca. 1468 - 1474 he comes to the conclusion, that the set was made "around 1465". We attack his logic in his argument. He assumes the existence of 50 engraved objects, when he has only few in his hands (1-2 illuminations of the Bolognese document (Emperor) and 4 printed virtues in a manuscript of St. Gallen). Of course there is the Lazzarelli manuscript .... and he knew 23 of 50 paintings, illuminations engravings or whatever, which he detected in a bookstore and which used as "illuminations, not as prints.

Hind was very busy in this question. He collected notes to more Mantegna Tarocchi engravings and relative expressions in other media as pen paintings, medals, etc. than we do possess about Trionfi cards from 15th/16 century, a lot of them complete sets from 1-50. His work made the impression, that not much was left to do and that he worked careful.

The Mantegna Tarocchi was mass productiuon and a lot of them survived. Nothing real could be dated before 1490/1480, only decent fragments. The biggest early fragment containining the most motifs is the Lazzarelli manuscript with 23 of 50 pictures, but these are illuminations, not engravings. The only early prints are the 4 virtues of St. Gallen, but 4 virtues are not a 50-motifs-socalled-Mantegna-Tarocchi and a complete mass-production.

The person, which shows the highest intimacy with the pictures, is Lazzarelli - who defintely is not a painter, but a poet, who collected pictures and motifs to make his manuscript look fine. The idea, that he slaughtered an existing complete 50 motifs concept already established on the market, looks absurd. It looks more naturally to assume, that Lazzarelli collected from various sources and formed his concept "in a creative manner" for his manuscript. Once having done so ... and the Mantegna Tarocchi doesn't give evidence, that it existed till then .... naturally Lazzarelli is the first person, who should be suspicioned to have done more with this pictures. Lazzarelli's manuscript weren't a printed manuscript, it didn't distribute in huge numbers, who else than him (or another one in close relationship) could have formed the Mantegna Tarocchi concept just with this pictures? Surely there were others, who collected pictures for different purposes, but why just this, used by Lazzarelli?

Lazzarelli was active in Rome and Camerino, not too far from Rome, in the relevant time. Hind - with high view from the technical perspective of engraving - suggests, that the engraver of the Ptelomy 1478 would be the "right man" - in Rome. It seems, that Hind doen't know the background of this text, and it's obviously, that he doen't speculate in the same direction as we do, he has no Lazzarelli reason to assume Rome as the correct place.

The Mantegna question: We do not exclude, that Mantegna had something to do with the pictures, that Lazzarelli found or collected. Lazzarelli probably collected from various sources. Perhaps that's the way, how the name found to the collection. But - for technical reasons - experts have negated, that Mantegna engraved these copperplates. Which is no problem. Somebody might have engraved Mantegna illuminations. It's generally assumed, that the engravings have a Ferrarese style. Also no problem. The engravers were used to copy, also "Ferrarese style", if necessary. The E-series must be a copy, as the Lazzarelli illuminations already must have been copies - of something, which existed earlier, but not naturally existed as a complex composition with 50 cards.

Indeed, we research a promising journey of Mantegna to Milan and to Ferrara in the year 1449. We know of somebody, who urgently wanted to have a Trionfi game in 1449 - in Milan, but actually from "near Padova". . When we can prove, that the dates of the Mantegna journey and the dates of the other person perfectly fit together, it might result, that this observation is interesting to get a clue about a relation from Mantegna to the "pictures, that were collected by Lazzarelli".

wandking

25-02-2005, 04:52

Ross G Caldwell

25-02-2005, 06:57

The earliest person I can find who mentioned the Mantegna images is Father Pietro Zani, in 1802, mentioned by Jean Duchesne (1779-1855) in an article from 1836. Zani does not say they are by Mantegna, according to Duchesne, who only cites anonymous "others" who claim it.

Here is the relevant portion of Duchesne's article, from the "Annuaire Historique de la Société de l'Histoire de France", 1837. The bibliography is included in square brackets, along with my own elucidations.

“Coming now to the old Italian game of taroc, we have to say at the beginning that the name of the engraver of this deck (jeu) remains unknown. It is certain that it is not the invention of Andrea Mantegna, as some have thought. Zani appears to believe that it was made at Padua [D. Pierre Zani, “Materiali per servire alla Storia dell’origine et de’progressi dell’incizioni in rame, in legno, etc.”, Parma, 1802 pp. 78-81, and 149-182]; but he cannot give the name of the author. The time when it was engraved is no more certain; but there exists a complete copy of it, of which one of the pieces carries the year 1485, written on the tablet which the figure ARITHMETICHA XXV carries. Now, one can think that the original deck should have an anteriority of 15 years or so; it would thus be engraved around 1470.

It is necessary to remark that Bartsch, in giving his description of the two series, made a great error [Bartsch, “Le Peintre-graveur”, Vienne, 1812, vol. X, pp. 70-120, and vol. XIII, pp. 120-138]; he cites the copy as the original, and the original as the copy. Despite the high estimation in which we hold this excellent author, we will not hesitate to say that on this occasion he any less excusable, since he confesses himself, in this regard, to be in contradiction with Father Zani, surely a very competent judge.

The undated deck is certainly the original: of a pleasing design, its engraving is fine, with the lines straight and clean, which is characteristic of the old Florentine printings. However, many of the inscriptions at the bottom are in the Venetian dialect. The ink on the impression of the exemplar in the Bibliothéque Royale de France is an ashy grey, and the proofs are taken from heavily used plates; but we have encountered scattered proofs in a very vigorous tone. Father Zani reports seeing in Naples, at the home of the Duke of Cassano Serra, a complete exemplar, in a state of perfect conservation, and of which the impression was very black.

It is difficult to understand how Bartsch was able to regard the original cards as being copies; he should have seen, on the contrary, that those he described as originals are evidently copied after the others. Their engraving is more rigid and more awkward; the look of the heads is often different and always less agreeable. Another proof of the priority of the game given as a copy is that, in this series, the figure Arithmetic, of whom we have already spoken, counts, in the original series, with tokens (jetons), whereas in the other series she holds a tablet on which are placed arabic numbers. However it is very certain that, when one wrote numbers with roman numerals, one could not count otherwise than with tokens. The use of arabic numbers, being more modern, would not have been able to have been indicated by the engraver than at the moment when this method of numbering had been generally adopted. It must also be noted that, in the original deck, the cards have a height of 9 and 3 to 4 sixths of an inch, and a width of 3 and 7 to 8 twelfths of an inch; while those of the copies are only 9 and 4 to 5 twelfths by 3 and 5 twelfths of an inch (... “les cartes ont de hauteur 9 pouces 6 à 8 lignes, et de largeur 3 pouces 7 à 8 lignes; tandis que les copies ont seulement 9 pouces 4 à 5 lignes sur 3 pouces 5 lignes”). One should naturally think that the cards made in the second place would be rather smaller than larger; furthermore, that these cards have a greater equality of dimension among them, is a perfection of fabrication which demonstrates their posteriority.

Although this deck has already been described, we think that it will agreeable to recapitulate it here, with aim of being more easily able to give an exact idea of the similarities and differences which exist among these cards and those of Charles VI [which Duchesne described earlier in the article]. The old game of taroc is divided into five series, each indicated by one of the first letters of the alphabet, ranged in the inverse sense to their numeric order, the no. 1 being part of the series E, while the the no. 50 is of series A.

Zani wanted to consider these letters as the initials of ATUTTO, BATTONI, COPPE, DENARI, and ESPADONE for Spadone, which is the real Italian word; perhaps also at this time, or in the Venetian dialect, this form existed.

[Duchesne gives a table of the names and numbers from 1 to 50]

The cards here are in the number of 50, which is not in rapport with any of our decks, since, given the number of players and the combinations adopted for each game, those are always in a number divisible by 4: so 20 for bouillotte, 28 for brelan, 32 for piquet and a great number of games, 36 for trappola, 40 for l’hombre, 48 for reversis, 52 for lansquenet and many others, 96 for comet, 104 for the lottery and 312 for thirty-one; the current taroc is however composed of 78 cards. It is played between two people, but one makes three parts, two of which have 25 and one of 28 for the player who deals the cards.

The old taroc cards were thus not made for mathematical games, but only for an instructive game. In this game, divided into five series, one finds the 7 planets, based on the celestial system; the 7 virtues, forming the principle of all morality; the sciences, which only man is capable of acquiring, and the knowledge of which raises him above the animals; the Muses, the cultivation of which spreads so much charm to life; at last, a series of the diverse stations in which man can find himself, from the most difficult situation, ‘the wretch’ (la misère), up to the most elevated of all, the sovereign pontificate.

One senses that in mixing the cards and distributing them randomly to several people, they would be able to offer combinations: pleasant, unique, bizarre or ridiculous, which, as in the ‘jeu d’oie’ and others, they would present situations amusing all of society. The numbers and the letters, then, would not serve except for recognition for those whose education was not finished enough to judge which association belonged to the cards they had in their hand.

After this explanation, we have no need to make it clear that the word ‘naipi’ would in fact suit such a collection of cards, since they were actually a child’s game. It will also be quite easy to see that a game of this type would offer relaxation to the prince who, by the weakness of his spirit, found himself returned to the state of an infant.”

[Duchesne is here presenting an argument that would hold sway for at least 80 years: that Morelli’s 1393 “naibi”, a children’s game, were the same as the Mantegna tarocchi, that the game made by Gringonneur for Charles VI was such an instructive game, and that the game made for Filippo was of the same type, since Decembrio says that Filippo enjoyed it “in his youth”. All of these points were discredited in the course of the 20th century.]

wandking

25-02-2005, 09:32

Thanks Ross, when I saw your name I knew the posting would be direct, well-referenced and informative. It lived up to my expectations. I think I'm clear on this... so, the article in 1836 referred back to writings of Father Pietro Zani, in 1802?

The article certainly recognizes the images as "cards" unlike some references and might be a source, or at least fuel for the debate over Mantenga authorship of the images. I find the conclussion of these writings strikng, as it closes by associating the images with Charles VI cards. I wonder when speculation started that they weren't cards. Is it because current examples exist only in uncut sheets?

I am disappointed the article bears such a late date... What leads researchers to attribute the images to the Renaissance?

BTW, thanks for the time everyone has taken the time to post, especially Huck, who is obviously putting alot of work into Mantenga research.

Huck

25-02-2005, 12:05

Yes I can see where that reference by Vasari might by in relation to the "Trionfo of Caesar" but does it read? "Si diletto il medesimo, siccome fece il Pollajuolo, di fare stampe di rame, e fra l'altre cose fece i suoi trionfi, e ne fu allora tenuto conto, perche non si era veduto meglio" (Giorgio Vasari, Vite de' piu' eccellenti pittori, scultori e architetti, Milano, volume 6, p. 218). Can you, or anyone else for that matter, acurately translate the preceeding archaic Italian quote? For the moment, let's put aside the "Lazzarelli manuscript with 23 of 50 pictures," although it's certainly intriguing. What is the earliest reliable source that features all 50 images?

Hind thought, that he had answered this question with "about 1465" for the E-series ... :-).

He had various complete series, so when he had found his date, then he had "his" origin.

So he didn't care too much for the "reliable" date, and he separates the complete and other series in categories like "early printing" and "late printing" according to his experience, that late printings are not so accurate as younger.

Probably somebody made a watersign research in the meantime, but I haven't heard of something like this.

Hind notes
1467 Bolognese illumination; 2 motifs involved
1468 St Gallen printing; 4 motifs involved
ca. 1470 Lazzarelli manuscript illuminations; 23 motifs involved
1471-1482 medal of friend of Lazzarelli, 1 motif involved
1476 book painting, 2 motifs involved.
1493-1497 book project Wolgemut: wood cut printings, 12 motifs involved
ca. 1495 Dürer paintings, 20 or 21 paintings involved.

The "big fish" is Lazzarelli.

Ross G Caldwell

25-02-2005, 17:21

Thanks Ross, when I saw your name I knew the posting would be direct, well-referenced and informative. It lived up to my expectations.

Thanks... that's a great compliment.

I think I'm clear on this... so, the article in 1836 referred back to writings of Father Pietro Zani, in 1802?

Yes. Zani doesn't call them "Mantegna" images though, according to Duchesne. He simply believes the undated series (what we call the "E" series, I think) comes from Padua, and he saw a full sheet in Venice.

I'm trying to get ahold of copies of all of these old articles, and make them available in one place soon (translated of course!). In the 18th century, there aren't too many, and in the first half of the 19th the number is still small enough that they could all fit into one volume.

The article certainly recognizes the images as "cards" unlike some references and might be a source, or at least fuel for the debate over Mantenga authorship of the images.

Yes, Duchesne wasn't much help in that regard, except to show us that even in 1837, Mantegna's authorship was doubted. But when did it *start*? If Zani is the first to note them (he is the earliest author Duchesne quotes on them), and he doesn't attribute them to Mantegna, it could be that the attribution started between 1802 and 1837. But how? If the cards weren't illustrated anywhere before then, how could anyone make such a judgement? It has to be from seeing them. Duchesne examined the Bibliothèque Royale (=National aujourd'hui) set; he says he has "encountered" other scattered remnants, in much better condition. Perhaps it was traditional at the Bibl. Royale to attribute them to Mantegna, and Duchesne is reporting what he heard, nothing he read in print.

It still annoys me that I can't get to the bottom of where it started.

I find the conclussion of these writings strikng, as it closes by associating the images with Charles VI cards. I wonder when speculation started that they weren't cards. Is it because current examples exist only in uncut sheets?

I imagine so. I don't know when speculation like that started, but I think it is fairly recently. Everybody in the 19th century thought they were the "naibi" cards, and the *origin* of tarot cards, and Duchesne thinks (and he was followed a certain amount of time - theories get chipped away over decades) that the "naibi" = instructive game of 50 cards was the origin of both the tarot *and* the regular pack. It must be remembered that this was a very early time when a lot of what we take for granted was not yet known.

I am disappointed the article bears such a late date... What leads researchers to attribute the images to the Renaissance?

I would guess it is a combination of both the engraving style and the subject matter in the engravings, which is 15th century, as well as the "date" on Arithmetica in the S series (1485). Then there is that pesky "oral tradition" we are tracking down, which leads us the corridors of the Bibliothèque National in the early 19th century, and the Villas of Marquises in Venice in the late 18th (where Zani got his information - although if the Marquis had thought they were by Mantegna, Zani would surely have reported it - maybe we can say then, that it must be a French oral tradition, which is only known about because those who have written about cards have taken the trouble to deny it).

BTW, thanks for the time everyone has taken the time to post, especially Huck, who is obviously putting alot of work into Mantenga research.

He certainly knows the most about it... I can only add my own little bit here and there.

Huck

25-02-2005, 20:15

Ross G Caldwell

25-02-2005, 21:29

Hind in his article to the Mantegna Tarocchi in Early Italian Engraving, Vol I, 1938, p. 221, refers to Luigi Lanzi, Storia Pittorica della Italia (Bassano 1795-6, I, p. 82), who speaks of 50 cards "che volgaremente si dicono il giuco del Mantegna", "although he himself does not agree with the attribution.

Is it Hind or Lanzi who doesn't agree with the attribution? Does Hind say which version Lanzi had seen?

At least it shows, there was already, at the end of the 18th century, a "common" opinion that they were by Mantegna. So we have 1795, and it was already a legend. The earliest Italian card history is by Bettinelli, 1784, but I haven't seen it and I don't know if he mentions Mantegna, although I think Duchesne would note it if he did (since he knows Bettinelli).

Huck

25-02-2005, 21:59

Is it Hind or Lanzi who doesn't agree with the attribution? Does Hind say which version Lanzi had seen?

At least it shows, there was already, at the end of the 18th century, a "common" opinion that they were by Mantegna. So we have 1795, and it was already a legend. The earliest Italian card history is by Bettinelli, 1784, but I haven't seen it and I don't know if he mentions Mantegna, although I think Duchesne would note it if he did (since he knows Bettinelli).

Hind speaks of Lanzi, his "first source", and who doesn't agree with the attribution. Hind also doesn't agree with the attribution. He doesn't give a note, which version Lanzi knew.

Further material is "provisionally" added at

http://trionfi.com/0/gg/

relevant is especially "Hind's list" (point in the menu). If you like we can add further material to "Earlier Mantegna Tarocchi sources".

Ross G Caldwell

25-02-2005, 22:44

Hind speaks of Lanzi, his "first source", and who doesn't agree with the attribution. Hind also doesn't agree with the attribution. He doesn't give a note, which version Lanzi knew.

Further material is "provisionally" added at

http://trionfi.com/0/gg/

relevant is especially "Hind's list" (point in the menu). If you like we can add further material to "Earlier Mantegna Tarocchi sources".

I found a French translation of Lanzi at gallica.fr (thank GOD for gallica - when will the other libraries follow suit?). This is what he has to say, in his discussion of early engraving (nothing more that I have found, yet) -

"It was by means of these methods that the fifty cards which are commonly called the game of Mantegna (jeu de Mantegna) were made; I saw it for the first time at the home of the majordomo of the ruler of Tuscany, the General Marquis Manfredi, who has a cabinet of extremely select prints. I saw another copy of it at the home of M. Father Boni, and I know that yet another one, which belonged beforehand to M. the Duke of Cassano, was bought by M. the Senator Prior Seratti, who added it to his precious collection.

There exists a copy of this deck of cards (jeu de cartes), in large, with some changes (for example, ‘Faith’ does not have a small cross, as in the original, but a large one). This copy is much later than its model; there is a second infinitely less rare, but in which one notes many more variations: the first card has, as an ensign, the Venetian lion, with the letters C and E interlaced; the card of the Doge carries this subscription: ‘il doxe’; on the others, one reads ‘artixan famejo’, and many other words which pertain equally to the Venetian idiom; which proves beyond any doubt that one should in no case seek outside of Venice, or the Venetian state, for the author of this work, so large and remarkable for its beauty. Who made it, is a veritable mystery. The design has much in common with Mantegna and the school of Padua; but the engraving is absolutely not that of Andrea nor of any known master of that time. A careful, but timid execution was observed in it, which announces the copyist of the work of another, rather than the work of an artist who executes what he himself has conceived; time will discover the truth regarding this matter."

[L. Lanzi, “Histoire de la Peinture en Italie, depuis la Renaissance des Beaux-Arts, jusques vers la fin du XVIIIe Siècle” (trans. From the Italian by Mme. Armande Dieudé, Paris, H. Seguin & Dufart, 1824) vol. I, pp. 163-164.]

Huck

26-02-2005, 01:28

I found a French translation of Lanzi at gallica.fr (thank GOD for gallica - when will the other libraries follow suit?). This is what he has to say, in his discussion of early engraving (nothing more that I have found, yet) -

"It was by means of these methods that the fifty cards which are commonly called the game of Mantegna (jeu de Mantegna) were made; I saw it for the first time at the home of the majordomo of the ruler of Tuscany, the General Marquis Manfredi, who has a cabinet of extremely select prints. I saw another copy of it at the home of M. Father Boni, and I know that yet another one, which belonged beforehand to M. the Duke of Cassano, was bought by M. the Senator Prior Seratti, who added it to his precious collection.

There exists a copy of this deck of cards (jeu de cartes), in large, with some changes (for example, ‘Faith’ does not have a small cross, as in the original, but a large one). This copy is much later than its model; there is a second infinitely less rare, but in which one notes many more variations: the first card has, as an ensign, the Venetian lion, with the letters C and E interlaced; the card of the Doge carries this subscription: ‘il doxe’; on the others, one reads ‘artixan famejo’, and many other words which pertain equally to the Venetian idiom; which proves beyond any doubt that one should in no case seek outside of Venice, or the Venetian state, for the author of this work, so large and remarkable for its beauty. Who made it, is a veritable mystery. The design has much in common with Mantegna and the school of Padua; but the engraving is absolutely not that of Andrea nor of any known master of that time. A careful, but timid execution was observed in it, which announces the copyist of the work of another, rather than the work of an artist who executes what he himself has conceived; time will discover the truth regarding this matter."

[L. Lanzi, “Histoire de la Peinture en Italie, depuis la Renaissance des Beaux-Arts, jusques vers la fin du XVIIIe Siècle” (trans. From the Italian by Mme. Armande Dieudé, Paris, H. Seguin & Dufart, 1824) vol. I, pp. 163-164.]

Very nice, good job. Does the text indicate, that there exists something beside E- and S-Series?
"large cross" for Fides? Does the S-series have a large cross?

Ross G Caldwell

26-02-2005, 02:15

Very nice, good job. Does the text indicate, that there exists something beside E- and S-Series?
"large cross" for Fides? Does the S-series have a large cross?

That's all the text says, unfortunately. He doesn't mention it earlier, and he doesn't mention it later. Kaplan doesn't present Faith from both series, so I can't say if the Lanzi's text implies that there is a *third* kind. I take it to be the S series from Duchesne's description, which says the heads are not so nice etc.

I note that Duchesne seems to give the wrong dimensions for the cards - he says "9 pouces", and from my Petit Robert dictionary, a pouce is an inch (2.54 centimetres). This measurement does not agree with what I read now, 182mm for the Paris set (7.6 inches roughly). So either Duchesne was using a different meaning for "pouce" (literally a "thumb" - but the 5-6 lignes (a ligne being an eighth of an inch) show he wasn't literally *using* his thumb to measure), or he made a mistake.

wandking

26-02-2005, 03:33

Cerulean

27-02-2005, 12:50

1. One discussion of various comparisons of the so-called Mantegna Tarocchi in a nice survey book of revivalist Renaissance classicism is in the Pagan Dream of the Renaissance by Josceyn Godwin. The author mentions Baccio Baldini.

2.In finding engraving analysis of Baldini, I'm having some leads to this engraver in terms of web images, including:

http://rubens.anu.edu.au/htdocs/surveys/prints/bytechnique/display00009.html

I've found some information on Florentine Baccio Baldini engraver (died 1487) around the time of Botticelli that did 'fine Florentine engraving' with subjects such as Baccus and Ariadne for labels of spice and perfume bottles that Florentine gallants would present to objects of affection. Charles Dempsey mentions this Baldini in The Portrayal of Love:Humanist culture during the time of Lorenzo the Magnificent.

I notice in some citations, Baldini is a Ferarrese artist or a Florentine engraver.

3. I believe this is from one of the Trionfi.com links, in regards to recent analysis/comparisons:

http://members.iinet.net/~nickl/artb.html

I added the segment speaking of authorship; the entire segment on the website above links to mainly contemporary reproduction samples for the small segment of the so-called Mantegna that deals with the Muses.

Baccio [Bartolommeo] Baldini

Italian goldsmith and engraver active in Ferrara, his designs incorporate figures and motifs derived from Botticelli, Piero Pollaiuolo and also German printmakers, such as the Master E.S. and Martin Schongauer, but particularly from Finiguerra; born ? 1436, buried Florence (1487).

The origin of the designs of the so-called "Tarocchi Cards of Mantegna", is controversial. It has long been thought that they are derived from designs by a Ferrara painter, possibly Baccio Baldini (op. 1460-1485), for use in the Ducal court. However, Kenneth Clark (see McClean, 1983) has attributed the designs to Parrasio Michele (1516-1578), Master of the School of Ferrara. More recently, Prinke (1990) has argued that the designs were, in fact, by Mantegna himself.

These prints are not Tarocchi as such, but seem to form a sort of instructive game for youth, if not a mere picture-book of popular designs, the subjects represented in the fifty cards of five suits comprising the sorts and conditions of men, Apollo and the Muses, the arts and sciences, the genii and the virtues, the planets and spheres. There are two different sets of prints, the one engraved with much greater precision and finish, in which Nos. L-X. are lettered E, the other to a large extent in reverse and executed in a more careless technique, with Nos. L-X. lettered S.

* "Tarocchi of Mantegna": MVSICHA XXVI, (1465), after Baccio Baldini (op. 1460-1485). Ref. Limberg (62), see Tibia 2: 92. A personification of Music plays a recorder (between alto and soprano in size); left hand down; window/labium and finger holes clear, including offset little-finger hole; cylindrical in shape with incised ring decoration near bell end. At her feet are a small portative organ, two lutes, and a tenor-sized wind instrument with a slightly flared bell, the mouthpiece hidden (probably a shawm). This bears a close resemblance to other drawings of Musica after Baldini (ca 1470), Capella (1532), and Schlick (1512).
* "Tarocchi of Mantegna": MUSICA (ca 1470), after Baccio Baldini (op. 1460-1485). Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale. Ref. Hass (1929: 74); Peter (1958: 44); Paris RIdIM (1999). " . . . depicts Musica playing a recorder; on the ground at her feet are a lute, a harp, a double recorder, small fiddle and a regal" (Peter, loc. cit.)

A personification of Music sits on a curved bench, a large swan standing beside her. The recorder is of the Dordrecht kind, the paired holes for the lowermost finger clearly shown and a small raised turning above the foot. The second lute is actually a rebec. Apart from the swan, this work bears a close resemblance to other illustrations of Music after Baldini (ca 1465), Schlick (1512) and in an edition Martianus Capella's De Nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii (1532).
* "Tarocchi of Mantegna": POESIA XXVII (15th century), after Baccio Baldini (op. 1460-1485). Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, Pring Collection. Ref. Mirimonde (?date-4: 280, fig. 26); Paris RIdIM (1999). A female personification of Poetry sits beside a fountain pouring water from a small jug in one hand. In the other hand she holds a cylindrical recorder.
* "Tarocchi of Mantegna": POESIA XXVII, from The Arts and Sciences (ca 1465), engraving, 18 × 10 cm, after Baccio Baldini (op. 1460-1485). Boston: Museum of Fine Arts ; British Museum London. H.E.I. 27a. Ref. Wiese (188: fig. 51b); Archiv Moeck; Salomon (1972: 218 - b&w); Frings (1999: 167, pl. 8 - b&w). A female personification of Poetry pours a jug of water (or wine) on to the ground with hand, holding in the other a cylindrical slightly flared recorder which shows paired holes for the little finger of the lowermost hand.
* "Tarocchi of Mantegna": MVSICHA XXVI & POESIA XXVII (early 17th century), tarot cards (wrongly attributed to design by Mantegna), after Baccio Baldini (op. 1460-1485). Ref. Guidobaldi (1990: 41-68). A personification of Music plays a recorder, seated at a bench with a swan. [Cesare Ripa says: "The wind moves the feathers of these birds - they never sing unless Zephyr is blowing."] The instrument is near-cylindrical, with holes, clearly including the low paired holes, and the window is visible. Music has a portative organ, lute, bow and ?rebec on the ground at her feet. Poesia plays a cylindrical duct-flute but with one hand, centrally, three fingers down, little finger beneath, but with a hole showing immediately above.
* "Tarocchi of Mantegna": EVTERPE XVIII (15th century), after Baccio Baldini (op. 1460-1485). Ref. Fideler (2003). Euterpe leans against a tree playing double pipes (duct-flutes). However, each pipe has seven finger-holes, the lowermost offset. Thus these would seem to be recorders.
* "Tarocchi of Mantegna": MERCVRIO XXXXII (ca 1460 or later), after Baccio Baldini (op. 1460-1485). Ref. Vasselin (1988: 71); Rowland-Jones (2000c, fig. 2). Facing right, Mercury holds the caduceus in his right hand, a cylindrical duct-flute (the beak evident) in his left hand. Between his winged feet lies the severed head of Argus, the many eyes clearly depicted. In front of him stands a cockerel. A mark at the foot of the recorder may represent an ornamental bead or the offset lower finger-hole of a recorder.
* "Tarocchi of Mantegna": MERCVRIO XXXXII (early 17th century), after Baccio Baldini (op. 1460-1485). Ref. Bartsch (1854-1870, 9 Supplement, Pass. 4: 145, 32-41). Facing left, Mercury holds the caduceus in his right hand, a cylindrical duct-flute (four lower holes in line), in his left hand with little finger down, others raised. Between his winged feet lies the severed head of Argus, the many eyes clearly depicted. In front of him stands a cockerel. Notes (in part) by Anthony Rowland-Jones (pers. comm., 2000).
* "Tarocchi of Mantegna": MERCURIO XXXXII (contemporary), heat-printed silver, 6 × 12 cm, Atanas Atanassov after Baccio Baldini (op. 1460-1485). Turin: Lo Scarabeo (publisher). Ref. Little (2001 - col.) From a modern version of these cards published by Lo Scarabeo, faithful to the originals in all the details of symbolism, pose, etc. Coloured with pastels and careful cross-hatched shading on a silver background.
* "Tarocchi of Mantegna": EUTERPE XVIII (contemporary), heat-printed silver, 6 × 12 cm, Atanas Atanassov after Baccio Baldini (op. 1460-1485). Turin: Lo Scarabeo (publisher). Ref. Little (2001 - col.); Wicce's Tarot Collection (2001 - col.) From a modern version of these cards published by Lo Scarabeo, faithful to the originals in all the details of symbolism, pose, etc. Coloured with pastels and careful cross-hatched shading on a silver background.
* "Tarocchi of Mantegna": POESIA XXVII (contemporary), heat-printed silver, 6 × 12 cm, Atanas Atanassov after Baccio Baldini (op. 1460-1485). Turin: Lo Scarabeo (publisher). Ref. Learning the Tarot (2003 - col.) From a modern version of these cards published by Lo Scarabeo, faithful to the originals in all the details of symbolism, pose, etc. Coloured with pastels and careful cross-hatched shading on a silver background.

If I find something closer, better, I'll post. Hope that helps.

Regards,

Cerulean

Ross G Caldwell

27-02-2005, 21:26

It becomes obvious that the Mantegna Images have been under scrutiny for a very long time because written sources dispute their authentisity. Mantegna wasn't the first or likely the last artist to have his works or style copied. In art, a common practice called comparitive analysis is regularly employed to refute or confirm the suspected origins of works. Have the Magtenga images ever been subjected to a comparitive analysis by a respected individual or group?

I'm sorry I can't help you with that question. It appears to me that each historian approaching the topic has looked at the evidence available to them, and made a judgement. I'm sure that the jugdements were well-informed and sound - all of them experts in engraving, such as Lanzi, Zani, and Hind. Hind in particular, being the most modern and thorough, is to be reckoned with. They seem to have no prejudice, and Lanzi even marvels at the series' beauty. Hind's devotion to cataloguing them demonstrates his appreciation of them. If they could have given Mantegna the authorship of the series, in good conscience, I am sure they would have.

Hind appears to be the closest thing to the comparative analysis you speak of.

This is for the authorship question. As for the dating question, that appears much more problematic, as Huck's investigations show.

wandking

28-02-2005, 03:11

Cerulean

28-02-2005, 04:38

"These prints are not Tarocchi as such, but seem to form a sort of instructive game for youth, if not a mere picture-book of popular designs, the subjects represented in the fifty cards of five suits comprising the sorts and conditions of men, Apollo and the Muses, the arts and sciences, the genii and the virtues, the planets and spheres."

This summary is generic and I am hoping that background that I wrote below is helpful to readers of the above quote.

Given that one of the theories examined in the comparisons noted in the Pagan Dream of the Renaissance suggests this is "a metaphorical ascent of the Soul," I actually do not discount that wellborn "youth"-young men might have been given this picture book allegory. The idea of this being a type of solitaire game match-up using idealized and imaginary portraits of 'the conditions of man" to the soul in paradise might also be ideal for the educated youth.

The engraving samples that I see in the Pagans Dream of the Renaissance, and another book on Florentine art of the time of the 1460s through 1470s were similar to my Dal Negro deck--uncolored, fine detail engravings. The Florentine art book (not pertinent to Mantegna, but a good reference on Humanist culture of the time and Botticelli's art) is The Portrayal of Love by Charles Dempsey, an art historian.

I am not certain if you have the deck from Dal Negro that I posted about in my first message, but if you are inclined, the Tavaglione summary in Italian does have general agreement with the Pagan Dream of the Renaissance writing and the synopsis below:

http://www.trigono.com/tarots/tarocchi-del-mantegna-meneghello.htm

The google English translation - unfortunately the only way I can get the link to translate into English is first going to this page and then clicking on the link--the second page is translated into English for you:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://www.trigono.com/Tarocchi/tarocchi-del-mantegna.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dtrigono%2Bmantegna%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D% 26sa%3DG

Also, the idea of this ascent of the soul allegorical game being part of the popular culture of the time spinning on the iconography of poetic humanists known to vernacular speakers and readers since Dante of a century and a half before--that is quite plausible.* The Pagan Dream of the Renaissance does an excellent job of showing surviving art and artifacts in Italian city-states and suggesting other resources for people to research further.

I would enjoy hearing if others have better available art and history resources than I have or can give authors and art samples. I really have tried to point to good suggestions as far as my limitations--and I am interested in others sharing their resources.

Best regards,

Cerulean

P.S.
*(In this time period of 1465-1470, a transition from the intellectual archives of Latin and Greek to the vernacular happened in Ferarra because Borso spoke the Tuscan and possibly French dialects, but did not read Latin or Greek. And it also reminds me, his focus on the Bible and other works forced many artists and artisans of Ferarra to seek employment with other patrons...which would explain why Baldini and engravers from Ferrara would migrate to Florence.)

The tangent above occurred to me, but I lost the thread of why it might be pertinent--it speaks more of Baldini's emigration from Ferrara to Florence and belongs to an earlier post, I believe.

Ross G Caldwell

28-02-2005, 04:49

Once again I see this "instructional childs game" reference. It certainly doesn't take an expert to see these images are more than childs play. If these writers had conclussive proof they were a childrens game they'd have offered it, instead of mimicing the opinions of others.

It's true, there's no proof that the "Mantegna" cards were the "naibi" child's game that Morelli spoke of in 1393. This is a theory that might have been invented by Duchesne around 1836.

The theory has been dropped from interpretation since D'Allemagne wrote in 1906 - he agreed with it then, but no subsequent author that I am aware of has mentioned it.

But just to put the earlier authors like Duchesne in perspective, for them a "children's game" for the elite of the middle ages would not have meant a simple-minded pastime meant to occupy the very young children, but something teaching very important and complex principles for youths just before puberty. There was no public school; the rudiments of education, which we take for granted, were given by tutors - and for the wealthy, these tutors were often the most educated people of the era. Well-educated boys could be expected to be proficient in Latin - which meant exposure to poets as well as prose writers like Cicero - by age 13, both reading and composition. Subjects which are esoteric to modern people - show the Mantegna to just about any adult nowadays (one who hasn't studied the subject), and ask what it "means" - were supposed to be commonplace to a well-educated teenager of the late 15th century. I doubt any teenager could name the order of the planets or a single muse - or any of the virtues - nowadays.

Historians like Duchesne, himself no doubt educated in a similar fashion, knew this, and we have to remember that this is the idea he had of a "child's instructional game" - something actually very profound, not a way to dismiss its importance, as someone of our current era might use the term. None of these authors from Duchesne to D'Allemagne meant to diminish the importance and profundity of the series in any way. They were trying to understand it in the context of the time, when basic education was a very different thing than it is today.

wandking

28-02-2005, 05:24

BTW, Cerulean, when I saw your posting last night I was chatting and in MSN chat I typed in "paydirt" because of those well-referenced sites you offered. thanks! Have you checked out their references to make sure they exist? Some sites in the past have used erroneous references but this certainly does not come across as one of those.... I'm kinda doing an experiment like Moakley did, in testing the library as a research platform to investigate Bembo cards, only I've been using the internet to see if it offers accurate info on Tarot history. try not to laugh too hard... yes, there's plenty of extraneous garbage online but there's some good stuff too, like Aeclectic Tarot and sites like you found. Many ancient texts are online and within the public domain at a site by that very name. Again, Crulean, thanks for your response.

Huck

28-02-2005, 21:51

Baldini belongs to the persons considered "in theory" as the original engraver of the Mantegna Tarocchi. Where did it start? Who had this idea?

Cerulean

01-03-2005, 04:55

Link here:
Chapter 9:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/tob/tob11.htm

Rudolpho Renier and Hind may have also cited Baldini, but I've only gone back as far as 1892 so far.

Regards,

Cerulean

Huck

02-03-2005, 06:11

Link here:
Chapter 9:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/tob/tob11.htm

Rudolpho Renier and Hind may have also cited Baldini, but I've only gone back as far as 1892 so far.

Regards,

Cerulean

Hind in his article from 1938 doesn't mention him nor does he mention, that somebody else found him relevant (I hope, I saw everything).

Some articles are added at

http://trionfi.com/0/gg/

Cerulean

02-03-2005, 10:10

http://www.tarock.info/renier.htm

My apologies, but this is the passage, untranslated for now.

"Ma in materia così ardua io ben mi guardo dallo esprimere una opinione personale. L'Ottley stette per la scuola fiorentina e credette trovarvi la mano di Baccio Baldini o di Sandro Botticelli. Lo Zani, il Pasavant, il Cicognara ed altri ritengono che il giuoco sia di origine veneta e forse più propriamente padovana. Vedi, oltre le opere citate, il bell' album tirato a cento esemplari Die Spielkarten der Weigel'schen Sammlung, Leipzig, Weigel, 1865, pp. 37-38.]. "

The odd thing is if Papus speaks of Baldini and Renier also does this, and if the Baldini images are in the London museums, I'm puzzled about Hind.

But then again, the early 1900 reprints from the historian Edmund G. Gardener, that I like for Ferrarese history, were probably reporting new material. E.G.G. pays tribute to Renier.

Sorry for the mistaken notion of Hind, perhaps he was earlier or just categorizing, not really as interested in details as Papus, E.G.G. and others, who were getting very specific.

Regards,

Cerulean

Huck

03-03-2005, 05:30

Hind thinks "generally", that an engraver of Florence might be responsible for the S-series, which Hind considers as later than the E-series.

wandking

03-03-2005, 14:09

S- series? I've only seen the A,C,D and E series... I've always assumed there was a "B" series somewhere... What images does the "S" series portray? Is there a site where I can view this series?

Huck

04-03-2005, 00:01

S- series? I've only seen the A,C,D and E series... I've always assumed there was a "B" series somewhere... What images does the "S" series portray? Is there a site where I can view this series?

There had been two old 15th century engraving-sets of 50 cards each, and one of the main differences were, that one designer used "E" as letter for the first 10 pictures (1-10) and the other the letter "S" for the same series. A-B-C-D for the pictures 50-11 was used in both sets. The motifs also show differences, in most cases the S-series mirrors the E-series and in few cases single motifs are very different. The engraving style differs strongly.

Part of the S-series is in Kaplan, Encyclopedia I, and he has a complete description of all differences.

As it seems, most researchers have agreed, that S-series is later than E-series. S-series is assumed occasionally to have developed in Florence, E-series in Venice or Ferrara.
We assume, that both engraving-sets at all were not the "original", as probably a lot of the single motifs go back to sources of earlier origin, which were not engravings.
There are many processes outside of the Mantegna Tarocchi field observable, that indicate, that engravings were naturally connected to copy processes, either from an object, that the engraver had developed himself, or from the painting, illumination, oil painting etc.. from another artists. Naturally engravings were always copies - the working material was too worthful to be wasted, so the engraving was carefully prepared.

So the engraver is - occasionally - only the final technican, not the creative artist.

kwaw

04-03-2005, 00:26

There had been two old 15th century engraving-sets of 50 cards each, and one of the main differences were, that one designer used "E" as letter for the first 10 pictures (1-10) and the other the letter "S" for the same series. A-B-C-D for the pictures 50-11 was used in both sets. The motifs also show differences, in most cases the S-series mirrors the E-series and in few cases single motifs are very different. The engraving style differs strongly.

Part of the S-series is in Kaplan, Encyclopedia I, and he has a complete description of all differences.

Why a,b,c,d,s instead of e?

Kaplan speaks of the theory:
Atutto
Battoni
Coppe
Denari
Spadone

While spadoni is the italian word for swords kaplan suggests it is possible the word form espadone was used in venetian dialect within some period. The lazzarelli images seem to be related to the 'S' series, or at least the prima causa [which has the four holy beasts in the corners, as in the 's' series].

Kwaw

wandking

04-03-2005, 04:31

Thanks, I guess I better re-read Kaplan, it's been a while. In attempting to post this message I ran across what appears to be a very early posting of yours on de Gebelin and was quite impressed. Do you still hold to those opinions? i ask alot of questions here at Aeclectic because Im working on an overview of Tarot history in a book I wrote, which might have factual errors but not for long. I refuse to submit anything that when published will add to the misconceptions currently running rampant in the accademic area of Tarot. In the card meanings I'm allowed some poetic license; however, history - like news, is no place for factual errors or poetic license. Otherwise, I become no better than Graves who took license to create a triple goddess in the mid 20th century.

Huck

04-03-2005, 04:41

Why a,b,c,d,s instead of e?

Kaplan speaks of the theory:
Atutto
Battoni
Coppe
Denari
Spadone

While spadoni is the italian word for swords kaplan suggests it is possible the word form espadone was used in venetian dialect within some period. The lazzarelli images seem to be related to the 'S' series, or at least the prima causa [which has the four holy beasts in the corners, as in the 's' series].

Kwaw

It's too early to make definite conclusions. L(azzarelli) - E(series) -S(series) have six possibilities to be arranged "correct" in time:

L-E-S - Lazzarelli is prior to E-series and E-series is prior to S-series
L-S-E - etc.
E-L-S - etc.
E-S-L - etc.
S-L-E - etc.
S-E-L - etc.

Reality knows only one "true" interpretation.

We assume, that L is first .... Hind assumed, that E is first and most followed him. We say, that "L is first" is at least similar logical as Hind's hypothesis, and also we say, that this "our" favoured possibility wasn't researched till now.
The prority of E- or S-series is a second question. The 50-motifs-set contains a doge. Would an original Florentian engraver have used a doge and a Venetian dialect? The S-series is suspected to be from Florence - but naturally this is not sure with 100% security. Only the S-series has the Arthmetic motif with a year number 1485 (which is also "not a sure information"). 1485 as the original date for the S-series clealy states, that Lazzarelli is earlier.
Hind says, that the "unknown" engraver of the Ptolemy 1478 (pictures produced earlier from since 1473) is the E-series engraver. The Ptolemy engraver is Sweynheim or "his (possible) pupil" Arnoldus Bucking - it's indestinct, why Hind doesn't know or doesn't accept this. Sweynheim is dead since 1475-1477, but Bucking is alive. So theoritical the E-series might be even later than 1485.
Hind's declaration, that the engraver of the Ptolemy is the engraver of the engraver of the e-series is an opinion worthful to be heard, but not naturally true.
However ... we detected, that Lazzarelli had strong contexts to Rome in the critical time ... this is an argument, which Hind wasn't aware of. So Hind's Ptolemy-hypothesis is strengthened by our indendent research with totally different arguments.
A production in Rome is - on first sight - unlikely cause "doge" and "Venetian dialect". But: there is a strong Venetian delegation in Rome ... the crusade against the Turks is a theme for the current Pope Sixtus IV ... Lazzarelli was in Venice before and had relations there, and he lived in Rome probably in a house of a Venetian. It's not impossible, that Lazzarelli thought of the Venetian market, when he (or one of his sponsors) commissioned the engravings. Also it's possible, that the current Roman-Venetian alliance caused Venetian dialect in Rome.
When Hind is right and Sweynheim is the real engraver, then we've with his death a concrete date: before 1475-1477 the E-series must have been produced.
1475 is a good date. Pope Paul II. had decided in the sixties, that the jubilee should take place all 25 years instead of all 50 years. So 1475 was a jubilee, which means, pilgrimage tourism in Rome. Which means: Possibly enough persons, which buy some engravings. But of course, when Bucking was the deciding artist, than a later date is not impossile.
When Wolgemut and Danhausen in 1493 - 1497 in Nürnberg try to compose a new book with woodcut engravings, which contain Mantegna Tarocchi motifs, they speak of a working title like "Trionfi from Rome" - not from "Trionfi from Venice" .
The medal of Fabritius Varano, working in Rome and later bishop and a Lazzarelli-friend, showed the Mantegna motif Euterpe, and it was produced 1471 - 1482. Rome again.

So this all speaks from:

1471 Lazzarelli (unknown illuminator, possibly from Ferrara, copied Lazzarelli's wild motif collection)
1475 or little before: E-series (Rome, Sweynheim copied already used motifs)
1485 S-series (Florence, "unknown artist", copied and transformed e-series, but knew Lazzarelli's manuscript)

The real original motifs might have had an earlier origin, but perhaps each tells a rather individual story.

In normal Tarot we've the same problem: Most motifs are older, composed out of various contexts.

Following the different motifs for motif Nr. 50, so we've reason to assume, that the producer of the S-series did know Lazzarelli's illuminations. Indeed, one of the Lazzarelli manuscripts was found in Florence. If we know about the way, how it came to this place, we possibly know a little more, who the S-series engraver might have been.

kwaw

04-03-2005, 05:43

The lazzarelli images seem to be related to the 'S' series, or at least the prima causa [which has the four holy beasts in the corners, as in the 's' series].

Kwaw

This subject is also being discussed over at TarotL at the moment, and Ross Caldwell has posted the 's' series and lazzarelli 'prima causa' for purpose of comparison here:

http://www.geocities.com/anytarot/mantegnalazzarelli.html

Kwaw

Huck

09-03-2005, 01:55

Actual researches of Trionfi.com (autorbis)
######################

Results: not much to the German printers. They are not listed as "artists" in art dictionaries, as far they were requested. Pannartz is said to have been originally from Cologne, Swanheym from Mainz. Bucking, as already mentioned, is a name common in Marburg. Only one source suggests, that Arnoldus Pannartz is identical with Arnoldus Bucking.

Much more data is receivable to Giovanni Andreae Bussi, bishop of Aleria and also to Domitian Calderinus, both noted as important Italian contacts of the three Germans. Each of both has 8-9 pages of biographical data in a requested Italian dictionary. In both biographies the relation to Sweynheim etc. is handled as a minor point (... :-) Italian biographers naturally do not have good ways to German sources, so this does not really explain, that the contacts weren't important).

Bussi was born 1417 in Vigevano (west and near to Milano). Bussi had 1435 studies in Paris and was present in 1440 at the school of Vittorino da Feltro in Mantua. Filelfo (then in Milan as house scholar of Filippo Maria Visconti) notes him then in a letter as visitor in Milan, too. He had friendly relationship to Teodore da Gaza, learning Greek. Around 1449/1450 he's in Genua and receives money as a teacher. Contacts to pope Nicolaus V. lead him 1451/1452 to Rome. He serves the cardinal Ludovico Trevisani. With Calixtus III. (1455) he becomes "canonicato" of San Ambrogius in Milan. It seems, that there were some enduring hostility between Francesco Sforza and him. He becomes secretary to Nicolaus Cusanus in 1458, a position, which probably prepares his later contacts to the German printers and which makes Bussi familiar to improvements in German printing industry. After the death of pope Pius II. and Cusanus he got churchly functions for Genua (vicario generalein 1464 and was made bishop of Aleria in Corsica in 1466. It seems, that the Milanese hostilities are closed then in Venice in 1466, where Bussi is present.
In 1468 his cooperation with Sweynheim and Pannartz starts and lead Bussi in complex situations of influence on the appearing texts, between these activities also a deeper contact to Pomponio Leto is noted, leading figure of the Accademia Romana, also to Platina, also to Campano, once teacher of Lazzarelli, also exchanges with Filelfo.
In his function as major cooperator with the German printers - who probably both had the handicap of missing experience in Italian language and mentality - it's likely, that Bussi made the major editorial communications to the outside. Also he had the role of the papal librarian, the function, which was taken by Platina in 1475.
Sweynheim and Pannartz parted their business in 1473 and Bussi seems to have concentrated on the further business of Pannartz, and the role for Sweynheim was taken by the much younger Domitian Calderinus. Bussi died
4th of February 1475, 58 years old.
Sweynheim, Pannartz and Domitian Calderinus followed soon, in October 1478 the "unknown" Arnoldus Bucking appears alone as in possession of the worthful edition of the Ptolemy.

Domitian Calderinus (Calderini, Caldarinus) was born in 1446 in Torri del Benaco at the eastside of Lago di Garda near Verona as Domenico, son of Antonio and Margherita di Domenico. He changed his name later according to humanistic customs.
He studied in Verona classical literature with a local humanist, Antonio Brognanino or da Brognoligo, and spend about 2 years in Venice with Benedetto Brugnoli da Legnago, before he left to Rome (about 1466/67), where he was attracted immediately by the Accademia Romana and also the circle around cardinal Bessarion. Perhaps he's identical to a "Domitius", addressed by two epigrams of Filippo Callimaco Esperiente, who was accused in 1468 and had to flee the attack of Pope Paul II. in 1468 on the Accademia Romana. First publication experiences are noted since 1469 and then variously. A contact to Bussi (see above) is recorded for February 1469, another to Giorgios of Trapezund, and an involvement in the conflict between Bessarion to Trapezund. Another mentioned contact is Campano, once teacher to Lazzarelli. As secretary to Bessarion he accompanied the cardinal to his mission to France in 1472, where Bessarion tried successly to get help against the crusade against the Turks. He should have been in Urbino at least once,as he describes the palace. After the death of Bessarion (November 1472) he was involved in the circle of cardinal Pietro Riario, nephew of Sixtus IV., whose extravagant festivities in 1473 astonished Italia, especially the banquet in honour of Eleanore of Naples on her way to Ferrara at 7th of July 1473. During a visit from July till 14th September 1473 (Riario became archbishop of Florence then, reason for further exclusive festivities) he became acquainted to the 8 years younger poet Poliziano in Florence, a very interesting relation, as Poliziano later lived in the house of Calderino in Torri and died there (1494), long after the early death of Calderino (1478), also to Lorenzo de Medici and the other Florentian humanists.
Various publication activities are recorded for the year 1474, his cooperation with Sweynheim, which is said to have started in 1473, can have taken only a small part of his energies. The young cardinal and sponsor Pietro Riario (28 years) died 5th of January, but the death seems to have affected Calderinus' career only slightly and the relation to the papal family stays good, at 27th of June 1474 Calderinus becomes "segretario apostolico", and is now active mostly in the surrounding of another nephew of the pope, cardinal Giuliano Della Rovere, later pope Julius II, which leads later to another visit and longer stay to France (February - till September 1476 in Lyon). An interest in mythological themes becomes obvious in these years ... something, which is the major topic of Lazzarelli.

He died, probably, in June 1478 during a peste.

Bussi and Calderinus appear as central Roman persons, who manage a lot of literary activities, their involvement in the printing business of Sweynheim and Pannartz is that of the publical agents, they build the bridge to the papal society, but by far it is not their only or their major occupation. In the case, that Lazzarelli was in Rome in the critical time, it's likely, that both would have known him, probably cause they knew likely everybody in Rome in the scene of literature during this time.

Researches to the Mantegna Tarocchi in development:
http://trionfi.com/0/gg

wandking

14-03-2005, 08:17

thanks for the link, kwaw.... that's good stuff from Ross, The four cherubs from Ezekiel and Revalations in the corners wowed me.... I'd never really gotten a close look at that image... It's the Universe, right? Similar to more modern Tarot iconography, like the RWS Wheel of Fortune and World cards. Those are some pretty solid run-downs on true roots of Mantenga Huck, keep up the good work.

I wonder where these four cherubs appeared next in print. Hmmm, I suspect the RWS picked them up from another Tarot but obviously not Visconti.

kwaw

14-03-2005, 10:02

kwaw

28-03-2005, 20:51

In attempting to post this message I ran across what appears to be a very early posting of yours on de Gebelin and was quite impressed. Do you still hold to those opinions?

You mean the one on 'Egyptian Origins' in which I suggest the tarot may have been 'read' or percieved as being in the genre of 'hermetic hieroglyphics' prior to de Gebelin; if so yes indeed I consider it both plausible and probable.

quote:
"Yet among invented games are `pages', in which, while being played,
certain traces of learning are even found, as in Tarots, and in those
which are printed together with the sentences of the sacred
scriptures and philosophers, by the printer Wechel of Paris. Human
desire squanders all the rest, along with those like them, where
money comes in the middle, and that desire is going to be felt."

Inventi tamen ludi sunt foliorum, in quibus dum luditur, vestigia
quoque quaedam eruditionis apparent, ut in Tarotiis, & iis cum quibus
excusae sunt unà sententiae sacrae paginae & philosophorum, apud
VVechellum Lutetiae typographum. Caeterum, & illis & similibus
abutitur humana cupiditas, dum prodit in medium pecunia, & habendi
desiderium.

[Pierre Gregoire, "Syntagma Juris Universi" (Lyons, 1597), Part III,
Bk. XXXIX, §4 (p. 464)]

end quote from:
Source and translation: Ross G. Caldwell in post to TarotL group September 5, 2004

While ‘those printed together with scriptures and philosophers’ does not exactly describe the embemata; it appears to me to be referring to something similar; and Wechel did publish early versions of Alciato's Emblematum liber, which Alciato himself described as being in the genre of Egyptian Heiroglyphics.

In the card meanings I'm allowed some poetic license; however, history - like news, is no place for factual errors or poetic license. Otherwise, I become no better than Graves who took license to create a triple goddess in the mid 20th century.

I don't think the creation is soley down to him; it does have precedent. Crowley for one prior to Graves [in Moonchild and in the notes to 777] alludes to the three faces of the moon goddess and the relationship to the three stages of pre-menstruation, menstruation and post menstruation. Circa 3rd/4th cent. ad too there are references to Diana or Artemis, Demeter and Proserpine being three aspects of the triple goddess of the Moon Hekate; the three different names being used in relation to her rule over the three different realms celestial [diana/artemis], terrestrial [demeter] and Cthonic [proserpine]. Three realms of dominion which may also be alluded to in the TdM Moon card.

Kwaw

kapoore

02-04-2009, 01:57

Huck

02-04-2009, 04:08

Hi Ross,
I'm still missing the reference. I'm about to go back to the art library at UCLA where I have found some good books on early cards. If you have a reference for the copper plating issue I would appreciate it. One aspect of this issue that hasn't been discussed is the connection between the Council of Mantua and the artist Mantegna. (Or at least I haven't run into that discussion)

Well, I'm not Ross, but ...

Generally it's so, that the "socalled" Mantegna Tarocchi once was called Mantegna Tarocchi, but more or less no art historian of some influence accepted, that the artist of this production was Mantegna (probably by stylish arguments).
The author Heinrich Brockhaus, an art historian, who descended from the family, which made the important German dictionary called "Brockhaus", is an exception. He's responsible for the suggestion (1933 ?), that the trio Piccolomini-Cusanus-Bessarion was active in this question.
The article is in German language and I know to read this language. The argumentation of Brockhaus is thin, it's a suggestion, not more.

The author for instance is in error about the "invented game" from Cusanus in "De Ludo Globi", which should be a game with balls or spheres, something similar to Petanque or Bocchia. Cusanus himself is known for a prohibition against card games (1455), relatively near to the time of the teachings of St. Capristanus in Germany, which had been the most severe attack on German playing card production known between 1370 and 1500. And, in the boring time of the council, Cusanus hadn't been there, he arrived, when the most interesting guest, Francesco Sforza, was already gone (he stayed two weeks only in September 1459).
You'll find a lot of material to the Mantegna Tarocchi at ...

http://trionfi.com/0/m/00/
the text of Brockhaus is at ...
http://trionfi.com/0/m/15/

Trionfi.com favours a solution, in which the Mantegna Tarocchi engravings were produced around 1475, in which the engraving artist was the German printer Sweynheim, who engraved after motifs, which were mainly collected from possibly various sources, mainly bought in a book + engraving store in Venice by the poet Ludovico Lazzarelli, who before 1475 used partly the same motifs already for 2 manuscript productions in Urbino - in different compositions than the 50-elements-Mantegna-Tarocchi.
Involved in the production were probably persons connected to a later pope, Pope Sixtus IV.

Most other suggestions favor an interpretation, which follow a specific argument of the art historian Arthur M. Hind, according which a few card motifs were used in 2 manuscripts in 1467/68 and therefore the complete Mantegna Tarocchi should have existed ca. 1465.
But the same author and art historian Arthur M. Hind stated 1938 the opinion (in the same article), that, if one could know the engraver of a Ptelomy-edition of 1478, that one probably would know also the engraver
of the socalled Mantegna Tarocchi.
What Hind didn't know, was, that the engraver of the Ptelomy was already about 50 years ago identified - with documentary evidence - as Konrad Sweynheim, who didn't engrave in Italy before 1473 (active as a printer then since 1463).

Mantegna was the house artist (so to speak) of that strange and scandalous Council. And there were without question games being played at the Council. I have been reading Pope Pius's diary that includes descriptions of the Council of Mantua. After the Council the Pope brings his Cardinals together and gives them a lecture about the "scandal" that they created by playing games and sleeping around during the Council.

I would like to have a quote, if it's possible.

kapoore

06-04-2009, 14:07

Hi..

There are two versions of the Memoir--one on line and then the other two volumes that I got from the library. The Council of Mantua was strange because no one believed it would work and it didn't. People simply didn't show up while the Pope sat in the swampy city of Mantua waiting as the host for a party that no one really wanted to attend.
"Some of the cardinals went to the Pope and said, "What is your object? It is no use to keep us here unless you mean to kill us with this pestilential climate. Why do you not Leave? You were here on the apppointed day; you have remained here a sufficient time. The princes stay at home and insult you and us. All realize that you were concerned to defend the Faith. That is enough for your honor. Who can blame you if you cannot conquer the Turks by yourself?..." May 26 to January 1460

Jan-Oct. 1460 The pope decides he needs new cardinals. He is considering the Duke of Milan's son Alessandro (the Duke was one of those who did show up). How serious is the Pope when he makes this speech to his cardinals: "You do not abstain from hunting or games or intercourse with women.... All men desire these luxuries and there is no one who is not naturally inclined to pursue pleasure. But if sobriety, dignity, temperance, learning, sanctity bestowed nothing but this office , fewer would seek it." In the end, he picks one of his own family to strengthen the weak. He says, "We, however, as being but men, shall elect men, since it is not Heaven and angels but earth and men that we are to govern."
(When I find it I'll add the other version of this diary when the Pope wants to elect new cardinals, and consults them.) Are we to interpret this speech as political rhetoric or are we to assume that the Cardinals participated in the debacle of Mantua?
The Memoirs are interesting as a context for the times. Clearly anarchy ruled. The Pope was continuously on the verge of death. Distances were vast, and traveling conditions primitive. Yet people were superstitious enough to steal everything out of the Cardinals apartments while waiting for the next Pope to be declared. And everywhere the Pope traveled people thronged the streets and women "who are naturally more inclined to religion and more devoted to the priesthood" ..."evinced the most extravagant joy."
Still no luck with that other version of the Memoir, but I thought you might be interested in an article on Cusa and the German printers, "A Crayfish in Subiaco: A Hint of Nicholas of Cusa's Involvement in Early Printing? by Johannes Roll. I found the article in an art magazine. Essentially the article describes the earliest printing in Subiaco. Subiaco had strong ties to Germany with most of the monks being German, and it was here that Sweynheym and Pannartz began their Italian careers in printing under the editing of Giovanni Bussi. Bussi claims that it was Nicholas of Cusa who desired to bring the press to Subiaco, and in fact Cusa's coat of arms is on the wall of the monastery. Perhaps the source for the games at Mantua can be traced to Bussi (who seems to have written a lot about Cusa as he was his secretary 1458 until his death and he probably was at Mantua). Maybe Brockhaus is quoting from Bussi on both accounts.

Huck

06-04-2009, 15:04

"Some of the cardinals went to the Pope and said, "What is your object? It is no use to keep us here unless you mean to kill us with this pestilential climate. Why do you not Leave? You were here on the apppointed day; you have remained here a sufficient time. The princes stay at home and insult you and us. All realize that you were concerned to defend the Faith. That is enough for your honor. Who can blame you if you cannot conquer the Turks by yourself?..." May 26 to January 1460

Jan-Oct. 1460 The pope decides he needs new cardinals. He is considering the Duke of Milan's son Alessandro (the Duke was one of those who did show up).

Is there really a son of the duke of Milan called Alessandro? Or is Alessandro = Ascanio?

How serious is the Pope when he makes this speech to his cardinals: "You do not abstain from hunting or games or intercourse with women.... All men desire these luxuries and there is no one who is not naturally inclined to pursue pleasure. But if sobriety, dignity, temperance, learning, sanctity bestowed nothing but this office , fewer would seek it." In the end, he picks one of his own family to strengthen the weak. He says, "We, however, as being but men, shall elect men, since it is not Heaven and angels but earth and men that we are to govern."
(When I find it I'll add the other version of this diary when the Pope wants to elect new cardinals, and consults them.) Are we to interpret this speech as political rhetoric or are we to assume that the Cardinals participated in the debacle of Mantua?

Surely some cardinals participated in Mantova and some of them were rather young. But we generally check, if in specific passages "playing cards" are really noted ... at this for instance "games" seem to be noted, not cards. But if you could do a second view by another version, that's better.