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

Huck

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

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.
 

Fulgour

two words

spec and stet
 

Huck

wandking said:
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

Don't you believe Andrea Mantegna created the images?

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?
 

Cerulean

I'm aware that Vasari's essays were colorful..

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

thanks Cerulean, I'd seen the andy site and many like it

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

wandking said:
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

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?
 

Ross G Caldwell

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.]