Re: The "Mantegna": 1450's Bologna?

#91
Image


A German book to the 16-years-old Alessandro Cinuzzi, who died 6 days after Pietro Riario ... somewhere I've seen this picture in these days, I don't remember.



It's said, that this was the greatest coin made till 1474. Various members of the Roman cycle made poems at this opportunity, something, which was repeated, when Platina died 1481.

I found a text to Lysippus ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=QpU-vM ... &q&f=false
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: The "Mantegna": 1450's Bologna?

#92
Huck wrote,
I would think, that you point to enough discrepancies between Mantegna Tarocchi e-series motif and the actual poem.

From this it seems (at least to me), that Lazzarelli hadn't the pictures, when he wrote the poem. Or he got them during the time, when he worked on the poem with some text already ready and other parts unfinished. And he hadn't possibly too much influence on his "Apelles".
In my post I emphasized the discrepancies. But many other parts fit the cards precisely. There are two possibilities (1) He has the pictures, or at least something very much like them, in front of him while he is writing, which the reader sees as well. Or (2) He's describing what he wants in the pictures, and his own illuminator, as well as the printer's engraver, for some reason don't follow Lazarelli's instructions precisely. You are opting for (2); I prefer (1).

So let's look at his description of Venus, taking into account both the correspondences and the discrpancies. Here's the part that corresponds exactly
719ff. Nude Venus swims forth from the midst of the natal wave of the sea, and the fair one holds a sea-shell in her right hand. For she divests lovers from extraordinary cares and affairs. Nude Venus calls nude bodies to herself Indeed. the sea shell engages itself in sexual union within its own body. Passionate love is ship-wrecked by a sea of troubles. 725 The victor stands with his quiver of arrows, and he is swift on his wings. The nude boy Cupid stands with eyes covered...
Then he moves on to describe the Graces, where his description does not correspond to the card. (I have not found e a reproduction of the illumination, unfortunately; all I have is the "Mantegna" engraving.) That part, where Lazarelli describes them with arms entwined, and as seducers and entrappers of men, I quoted already.

If option (2) is correct, why did the engraver not follow Lazarelli's portayal of the Graces? The problem is that it would have been easier to follow Lazarelli than to make up something else, because Lazarelli is just giving the standard depiction, or three girls with entwined arms. The discrepancy requires an explanation.

Image


If option (1) is correct, why did the designer of the engraving not follow the standard description of the Graces? One explanation might be that he had just done a "Huntsman and Three Nymphs" and liked what he did. It was easier for him just to repeat that scene. The Graces on the "Mantegna" Venus card in fact look very much like three shy girls bathing who have just been discovered by a huntsman. Or for some other reason the designer of the card thought the Graces should be portrayed that way. On option (1) (where the "Mantegna" comes first) the card-designer actually doesn't have to have a reason for departing from Lazarelli; he's probably never heard of him. In that case, Lazarelli, coming afterwards, is reacting to that portrayal by saying that it is not the way it should be done.

You could perhaps offer a similar explanation for why, in option (2) Lazarelli's illuminator or Sweynheim's engraver preferred a different way of showing the Graces--except that you have no such drawing, engraving, or painting to post from Sweynheim's circle in Rome, or from an engraver he might have hired. (We know it wasn't Zoppo, if only because he died in Venice,1478, and so couldn't have done the maps.) In fact, from what you have posted, we don't know whether Sweynheim's shop even did engravings, besides the one series of maps. Conceivably this hypothesized engraver could have taken the nymphs from some "Acteon and Diana" that was around. I don't know of any with a similar composition, but why would he have used such a scene, of maidens who wanted not to be seen by men, when Lazarelli clearly specifies the opposite? I don't know of other examples of hunters coming upon naked nymphs; perhaps you know some that would have been current in Rome of the 1470s.

I will give a few more examples. For the Sun, Lazarelli describes the detail of Phaeton and the Scorpio. The Scorpio is an unusual detail, not found on many depictions of the fall of Phaeton. Sure enough, the "Mantegna" includes the Scorpio. So, you say, the engraver got it from Lazarelli. But that is not necessary; the scorpion's role in the Phaeton story was well known and also appeared in artists' depictions. Here is a Florentine cassoni which Schuebring dated to about 1450. I apologize for the blurry image: I was photographing pages quickly at the Getty Library in Los Angeles and didn't realize I would be using this one.

Image


And there is another difficulty: Lazarelli's illuminator omitted the comparable detail for Luna, which was also well known and he could just as easily have put in. So does the "Mantegna," strongly suggesting that the illuminator was following the "Mantegna" engraving and not Lazarelli's poem. I will explain.

For the Moon, Lazarelli mentions that her chariot is shaped like a ship. and that there is a Cancer in front of it. These are nice specifications, not that unexpected, given Luna's connection to the sea. Here is an example, the top of an early 1460's Florentine engraving, the "Luna" of Baldini's "Planets" series. It even has the horns that he wanted Luna to have.

Image


In Lazarelli's manuscript, as in the "Mantegna," there is not only no horned Venus, but there is no Cancer either. If option (2) is correct, and the illuminator and engraver are following Lazarelli, there should be one. A crab or crayfish is as hard or easy to draw as a scorpion.

Image


If option (1) is correct, no explanation is needed. The reasons for the Scorpio and the Cancer are quite different: one pertains to the Phaeton story, of how the scorpion came to the chariot and scared Phaeton, causing him to lose control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorpius); the other has to do with the astrological association between the Moon and water and the observed association between the Moon and the tides. But It is not part of any dramatic event involving the chariot of the Moon, so the designer didn't think of it. Lazarellli, viewing the two pictures he bought in Venice, sees an asymmetry between them and has a suggestion for improvement.

You might reply: well, Lazarelli's illuminator used some of Lazarelli's original ideas, rejected others at his whim, and inserted his own non-standard ideas on occasion (like Jupiter's rainbow, which isn't in Lazarelli nor the standard portrayal of Jupiter, which usually shows Ganymede); what goes in the illumination is his prerogative as an artist. By the time Lazarelli sees the manuscript, it will be too late. Well, such an illuminator wouldn't get many more commissions!

But let us assume such a willful illuminator, and go on to look at Lazarelli's description of Apollo. Here it is clear that he is asking the reader to look at the image we see in the "Mantegna," because he's disgusted by its poverty. And this is as true of illumination in Lazarelli's own manuscript as of the "Mantegna" image. All Apollo has is a crown (and why that, instead of his customary laurel wreath? Lazarelli wonders) and a laurel staff. But what about his lyre?. What is the leader of the Muses doing without his lyre, on which he accompanied his singing the time he bested Marsyas? But at this point in his writing, he realizes that his illuminator isn't going to make any but the easiest of changes; so he just laments.
...Thus you are considered delightful when you sing on the resounding lyre, 0 beloved Apollo. It stands near a mirror for either your beloved son the Epidaurian is said to have invented this, or because you know future things in your mind and you see all times as if in a mirror. But maybe it has been taken from you and you do not pluck the lyre, 0 Apollo, but you mark out the earth and the golden stars with your staff. Not the laurel but the royal crown binds your hair, and the odorous laurel wreath fills your holy hand.
Image


Well, there is no laurel wreath in his hand, just a laurel staff, in both the "Mantegna" and Lazarelli's manuscript. The bit about the "mirror" that Lazarelli thinks Apollo should see himself in is rather obscure; perhaps it refers to an epigram by Martial *Labahn et al, Wonders Never Cease, p. 26 note 12, in Google Books). But let us go on. Lazarelli then recalls other noble attributes of his god, and laments some more, in the part I already quoted. (A "plectra" is a pick for plucking strings)
73ff. Now I remember that I have seen you elsewhere bearing bow and quivers, sweet plectra and the lyre. The Penean virgin was washing her shining hair. Youths were present and cheeks without blemish. I saw you, Delphicus, among the Hyperborean griffins. I knew you beforehand. The crow was near you. Who changed your culture? Who changed the mark of honour of your brow? Perhaps I am not permitted to know everything.
On Option 2 here, we have to suppose that Lazarelli was asking his illuminator to put in an inappropriate image, that didn't capture the spirit of Apollo (it in fact was used later, according to Zucker, as the model for depicting a saint!) and didn't characterize him as the leader of the Muses, just so that Lazarelli could express his lament. "Put in a crown and a laurel staff, but be sure not to include a lyre, a bow, etc." he is saying, in effect, on that option. But why would Lazarelli give such an instruction? And why would Sweynheim include, in a set he hopes to sell, an engraving that his text says is wrong (and actually is pretty stupid)?

Option (1) makes far more sense: Lazarelli has before him a picture of Apollo that he finds weak and impoverished, in a set of images purporting to be those of classical mythology, a set that artists in Ferrara are even using as models for their own images, and he wants Borso to know about it.

It is the same for Musica and Poesia, although conveyed by innuendo rather than outright statement. On option (2) we have Lazarelli instructing the illuminator to depict as puffing on a flute someone most glorious for her singing, and another most glorious for her stirring words. Why would Lazarelli instruct his illuminator to draw Musica and Poesia so inappropriately? It makes no sense. He is criticizing someone else's inappropriate depictions. And again for the Muses, he is clearly unhappy that all but two have been depicted as playing musical instruments instead of speaking or singing. If so, why instruct his illuminator to draw them with instruments, as he clearly specifies in the quotes I gave? Again, he is criticizing something done already, not proposing something inappropriate so he can express his regret at the result.

Re: The "Mantegna": 1450's Bologna?

#93
We fight with insecurities, that we cannot answer from the known conditions - at least for the moment.

There are discrepancies between text and pictures.
We don't know, how and when Lazzarelli got his pictures and if he got them before, during or after he wrote his poem ... for instance Lazzarelli also might have gathered the pictures over a longer period, actually a usual habit for an author.
And we don't know, what happened in the final redaction.
There are discrepancies between the two or 3 editions editions, some text, which is given in one edition, is missing in the other (a similar feature appears with the Fasti, in this case the longer text is interpreted as Lazzarelli's autograph and the other as a "refined copy - if I understood this correctly). Recently I discovered a snippet about a text in San Severino, I noted:
On this way I found a report to an incomplete edition of Lazzarelli's text (with pictures, as the report states). The report is from 1958.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bXAxRO ... 22&f=false
Page 144

Image


A text fragment of Lazzarelli's version ... with some pictures.

Are the Florentine version and both the Vatican library versions with pictures? I don't know.

If there are pictures, are they all the same? I don't know.

Did O'Neal mention the text in San Severino? ... I don't know. Perhaps the text, which was 1458 located in San Severino, had been in O'Neal's time in the Vatican library? I don't know.

http://mellenpress.com/mellenpress.cfm?bookid=2751&pc=9

*************

Further insecurities are about the stay of Lazzarelli in the years 1473-75 ... was he in Rome or was he not in Rome? Did he influence the final edition? Did he give the manuscript in person to Montefeltro? Or was it just the management of Lorenzo Zane?

There are many mysteries about this circle of Rome around 1474/1475. There is this surprising death of Pietro Riario, the most mighty young cardinal of the year 1473. Suddenly ...dead. The page of Girolamo Riario a few days later ... suddenly dead.
After Pietro's death Girolamo became peu a peu the mightiest man in Rome, successful in parting the close connection between Giuliano Rovere and the Pope Sixtus IV, in the final stage a scandal around a hindered murder attempt. Around this time and some time later two essential assassinations, which shocked Italy, Galeazzo Maria Sforza's death and Girolamo's/Sixtus' attack on the Medici brothers.

Vatican's policy had been to close evidence about such stories behind big doors in the Vatican library - till 20th century. They couldn't avoid, that anyway some stories were known publicly.
For the moment we've these scandals, which make the life of the current Pope Benedict difficult ... just another example of "closed doors", which are partly still active in their function.

Only few years ago the story appeared, that the glorified Montefeltro was more involved in the dark story about the Pazzi revolt 1478, as the generally history about this time had it.
(As I noted it in the "Montefeltro collection)
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=494
It actually seems from my further studies, that this is meanwhile accepted by serious historians.

Well, we have the time of internet and information is much more easily accessible. It is predictable, that
other "dark stories" will appear on the surface, and they will be not always wrong.

It's not implausible, that in the struggle for Pope Sixtus' favor one nephew killed another (Pietro was 2-years-older brother of Girolamo ... but obviously Pietro was preferred and lived with a court of 500 persons; perhaps Girolamo saw with some realism, that this would not work well a long time). A page, who served as tool in the activity or otherwise had known too much, had good chances to die soon later.

Between all this Lorenzo Zane and our attempt to understand Lazzarelli and his movements. There are some relevant cruel matters outside of the usual focus of the "nice history of arts".

Montefeltro, though long on the side of Sixtus, died finally on the side of Ferrara (1482), which was attacked by Venice with the consent of Sixtus. Costanzo Sforza dropped earlier from the papal side, as Girolamo had his eyes on Pesaro then. Sixtus turned away from the side of Venice, causing another new front. When the fighting parties dropped to a peace, Sixtus died of anger one day later, after having guided Rome for years in civilian wars, murder and other troubling circumstances. Well, this was not the situation of of 1474/75, but it resulted from decisions, which prepared the later chaos.

*****
Later added:

http://books.google.com/books?id=vb2iu3 ... re&f=false

Christine Shaw expresses the opinion, that Guliano Rovere (later Pope Julius) had more reason than Girolamo to kill Pietro Riario (by Shaw called "San Sisto").
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: The "Mantegna": 1450's Bologna?

#94
Indeed, I got the picture, which I remembered recently ...

Image




Image


Mesozzo da Forli, the same, who painted ...

Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


These pictures seems to have had a relation to this place ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santi_Apostoli
which is the burial place of cardinal Pietro Riario, who at least partly commissioned some work on it and is the one, who died 1474

... but the pictures were (at least partly) removed

Melozzo da Forli

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melozzo_da_Forl%C3%AC

1465 - 1475 in Urbino for Montefeltro /possibly some work at the studiolo
About 1475 he turned to Rome, however, there might have been earlier a commission of Pietro Riario in 1472
He becomes a sort of first painter for Sixtus
About 1477 he is recorded to have worked at Girolamo's Palazzo Altemps
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palazzo_Altemps

*******
I wonder, if these angels had a sort of Muses function

It is somehow remarkable, that this "angel" hadn't wings
Image
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: The "Mantegna": 1450's Bologna?

#95
There is something of interest at ...

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Riario

.... at the bottom of the page: Lorenzo Zane and Pietro Riario exchange titles or "possessions".

Lorenzo Zane gives "Arcivescovo di Spalato" and gets "Vescoso di Treviso", both at 28th of April 1473, either Lorenzo is then already on ship towards Greece or will leave immediately.

**************

This seems to give evidence, that Lorenzo Zane has already at begin of 1473 some central meaning for the Riario/Rovere organization.

**************

A modern map of Rome

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source= ... 1&t=h&z=15

A. Castle St. Angelo

B. Place, where Girolamo Riario did build his Palazzo, now a Museum

C. Palazzo Massimo, where (likely) Sweynheim and Pannartz had their printing press (the old building was destroyed 1527).

D. The Church Ss. XII Apostoli (burial place Pietro Riario) - near to his Palazzo, which is likely Palazzo Colonna in the same street.

E. San Pietro in Vincula, titular church of Giuliano Rovere ... his palace is said to have been near to it. Later he took the Palazzo of Ss. XII Apostoli near (D.)


********** note to Robert, Forum cannot operate this sort of link

Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: The "Mantegna": 1450's Bologna?

#96
Huck wrote,
We fight with insecurities, that we cannot answer from the known conditions - at least for the moment.

There are discrepancies between text and pictures.
We don't know, how and when Lazzarelli got his pictures and if he got them before, during or after he wrote his poem ... for instance Lazzarelli also might have gathered the pictures over a longer period, actually a usual habit for an author.
And we don't know, what happened in the final redaction...
Well, it's clear that Lazarelli knows many images very close to the "Mantegna" at some point before he send off his poem to Urbino, because his descriptions fit not only the "Mantegna" but his own illuminations, as much have been published of them, which he must have seen before he sent his manuscript off to Urbino. There are only a few discrepancies. (Whether he saw the illuminations bit by bit while he was writing the poem, or all at the end, is another question. The fact that the actual discrepancies, as opposed to innuendos, get fewer the further along we get, suggests to me that he did see them, rewrote the part on Apollo accordingly, and for the Muses gave up hoping that his illuminator would make the changes to the "Mantegna" that he wanted.)

Lazarelli describes Musica and Poesia exactly according to the "Mantegna" images and those of his own illuminations, even though the way he writes, one would think he disapproves of what he and the reader have before them.

He describes Philosophia exactly like the "Mantegna" and his own illuminations, although he has changed her name to Pallas.

He describes the Muses in accord with the "Mantegna" and those that I have seen of his own illuminations (Calliope, Thalia, Clio), including identifying correctly which have instruments and which don't, and what the instruments are, even though again there is the innuendo that he disapproves of giving so many of them musical instruments. There are some small discrepancies with O'Neal's translation, but when I checked the Latin, the discrepancies went away. (For Euterpe, O'Neal translates a word that actually means "propped up" as "seated." In the "Mantegna," Euterpe is not seated; she props herself up against a tree. For Terpsichore, O'Neal says her instrument is a "lyre"; the word in Latin, "cythera," also applied, in Renaissance Italy, to the lute, according to one website I found on Google. In the "Mantegna," she plays a lute. I would assume that the illuminations are the same, because the three that have been published are the same, but of course I don't know for sure.)

Lazrelli describes Saturn, Mars, and Sol totally in accord with the "Mantegna" and his own identical illuminations, except for the change of Saturn's oroborus-serpent into a dragon in both the illumination and the "Mantegna" engraving.

In the case of Apollo, he clearly has the "Mantegna" image before him, identical to his own illumination, because he describes it accurately, and treats it as though it was before the reader, too:
But maybe it has been taken from you and you do not pluck the lyre, 0 Apollo, but you mark out the earth and the golden stars with your staff. Not the laurel but the royal crown binds your hair, and the odorous laurel wreath fills your holy hand. Now I remember that I have seen you elsewhere bearing bow and quivers, sweet plectra and the lyre... I knew you beforehand. The crow was near you. Who changed your culture? Who changed the mark of honour of your brow? Perhaps I am not permitted to know everything.
He also objects to the image before him and the reader--no lyre, no bow, no crow. So either his illuminator has not followed his earlier instructions, and as a result he has had to rewrite that page of the manuscript, or he is objecting to the "Mantegna" image. (In his description of his own illumination, I did find one minor discrepancy between the image and O"Neal's translation: Lazarelli says that Apollo holds a "laurel wreath" in his hand, while the image shows him with a laurel staff. This might be a translation problem; I will check the Latin.)

Luna, Mercury, Venus, and Jupiter have small but important discrepancies, both compared to the "Mantegna" and to his own illuminations, but Lazarelli doesn't object explicitly to the images; he simply describes different details than are present in the illumination and the "Mantegna," for Luna, Mercury, and Jupiter. We don't have a reproduction of the illumination for Venus, but I have no reason not to think it was, like the others, the same as the "Mantegna"'s. (But yes, I would like to see the "drawing" in the fragment you cite.)

So either we have a very self-willed illuminator, who nonetheless Lazarelli accepts, with protests written into the poem, for his book's final state, and who mostly follows Lazarelli but sometimes doesn't; or Lazarelli has the "Mantegna" before him as he writes and is objecting to some of its portrayals. I don't see any other alternative.

Re: The "Mantegna": 1450's Bologna?

#98
Hi Mike,
mikeh wrote:...or Lazarelli has the "Mantegna" before him as he writes and is objecting to some of its portrayals. I don't see any other alternative.
This is the view I have always had. Lazzarelli found sheets or an album of the series and was inspired to write a panegyric that also included a "complaint" about the abuse of the images of the gods. He also invented others, like Juno. I find it hard to believe that Lazzarelli's mansucript influenced the engraver of the S-Series - the four evangelical beasts around the Prime Mover - so it might be that the S-Series - another engraver - had already been produced by 1471. Either that, or the S-Series engraver really did know Lazzarelli's work.

I really appreciate your reading of Lazzarelli's "Images of the gods" and your investigative work into the E-Series. I agree with your reasoning. Sorry I can't contribute much to the subject.

Ross
Image

Re: The "Mantegna": 1450's Bologna?

#99
Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote: This is the view I have always had. Lazzarelli found sheets or an album of the series and was inspired to write a panegyric that also included a "complaint" about the abuse of the images of the gods. He also invented others, like Juno. I find it hard to believe that Lazzarelli's mansucript influenced the engraver of the S-Series - the four evangelical beasts around the Prime Mover - so it might be that the S-Series - another engraver - had already been produced by 1471. Either that, or the S-Series engraver really did know Lazzarelli's work.
Ross
S-series
Image


Lazzarelli
Image


Well, it has some differences.

Table of Arithmetica, the reason to argue, that the S-series might have been done 1485
Image


Arithmetica (S-series)
Image


***********
Pope Sixtus IV (July 21, 1414 – August 12, 1484)
Pope Innocent VIII, Papacy began August 29, 1484
***********

Some cards of the S-series got a radical change against the E-series, to them belonged 10, Pope

E-series
Image


S-series
Image


Another deep change was made for 8, Re, the King

E-series
Image


S-series
Image


Somehow it was "romanized".

If one assumes, that the Mantegna Tarocchi was made ca. 1475 to be sold in the Jubilee year, the election of a new pope after August 1484 might have caused the interest to have a new edition of the successful series. I think, that Eastern 1485 was a great festivity, especially as the people espected peace after the long war escapades of the late Sixtus.
If the S-series was made in Rome - which doesn't look improbable, if one assumes, that the E-series was made there - then it might well have been, that the material, which was needed for the first edition, still existed, or, other possibility, Lazzarelli, who had been long time in Rome, might have left one or another more copy of his text there, which is lost now. It isn't necessary to assume, that the creator of the S-series only knew about the E-series.
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Re: The "Mantegna": 1450's Bologna?

#100
An observation about the book printing activity in Rome and Venice:

year - RO VE
******************
1499 - 38 219
1498 - 25 198
1497 - 22 177
1496 - 36 192
1495 - 94 205
1494 - 42 214
1493 - 86 180
1492 - 70 193
1491 - 58 190
1490 - 90 185 - Trionfi card tolerance in Venetian cities
1489 - 24 114
1488 - 42 137
1487 - 50 115
1486 - 35 111
1485 -124 119 - assumed date of Mantegna S-series production / new pope
1484 - 48 96
1483 - 50 123
1482 - 42 98
1481 - 56 112
1480 - 61 118 - End of Venetian-Osman war
1479 - 22 54
1478 - 53 88
1477 - 35 80
1476 - 51 77
1475 -121 78 - assumed date of Mantegna E-series production / Jubelee year
1474 - 68 56
1473 - 64 41
1472 - 54 77
1471 - 46 66
1470 - 53 31
1469 - 17 4
1468 - 9 -
1467 - 3 -

Rome's development shows two mountains in the years 1475 and 1485, partly caused by not precise dated texts (rounded values to years with ending cipher 5 or 0), but likely also caused by the given reasons "jubilee year" and "new pope".

In Venice we've strong increase between 1479-1480 (likely connected to new peace conditions after the hindering Osmanic war) and between 1489-1490 and at this opportunity we see also Trionfi card allowances in 3 Venetian cities (Brescia, Salo, Bergamo, 1488-1491). Both developments depend probably on the condition, that Venice started to behave more open to its Italian neighbor states (better trade conditions) after the Ferrarese war 1482-1484.

http://trionfi.com/0/e/39/
http://trionfi.com/0/e/40/
http://trionfi.com/0/e/41/

Generally Rome was of greatest importance for the book printing business in Italy at the begin, but didn't increase after a good start in the later years of the century.
Venice had also a good start, though only second in Italy, but in contrast to Rome it took its way to the most promising European printing location.

Rome had in 15th century totally 2279 editions (3rd in Europe after Venice and Paris with 3798), Venice had 4347 and the top position.

Numbers according http://www.gesamtkatalogderwiegendrucke.de/
Huck
http://trionfi.com

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

cron