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

[wandking]

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]

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]

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]

1795, earliest reference according to Hind

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.

 

[Ross G Caldwell]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

In previous posts...

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?