Tarot History Forum

According to an expert consulted by Christie's auction house for a sale in 2009 of all but one of the E Series and S Series (for nearly $300,000), a watermark on the paper of the E Series is dated to 1465-1473.
http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot_ ... ID=5276205

The expert consulted is called Peter Bower (penultimate paragraph). The text goes on to say that a paper report is available upon request, with a phone number given.

This is quite a stunning confirmation of Hind's estimation of the date of the original engravings.

Excellent find, Ross. I e-mailed Tim Schmelcher asking for the paper report. It would be interesting to know what else has that watermark. His out-of-office reply said that Christie's will be closed until Jan. 4 and that he himself will return on Jan. 5. I will be waiting with baited breath.

I notice that the report dates the two S-series cards in the sale to c. 1475. I will check Hind to see what he says about the S-series, I may have to wait until Jan. 4 for that, too.

As it happens, I already have a copy of the relevant page in Hind, vol. 1, in which he hazards a guess for the dating of the S-series. It occurs at the end of his discussion of the "Mantegna," immediately after the paragraph cited by Trionfi in which Hind speculates that the engraver of the E-series might have also (later) engraved the Rome Ptolemy of 1478. On p. 228 Hind says

With regard to the engravings of the S series we have already noted some resemblance in manner to Florentine Fine-Manner engraving. Lacking further evidence we can only conjecture the possibility that the engraver was a Florentine working some twenty years later than the original engraver, i.e. 1485.

If Bower's report is accurate, Hind has dated the S-series about 10 years too late. Hind's estimate for the E-series--twenty years earlier = c. 1465--is at the lower end of Bower's 1465-1473 estimate. Perhaps the paper report will shed more light.

Let me add that this particular set of engravings, held by the same family in the city of Foligno since at least 31 March 1559, is not among those partial or complete sets of E-series cards listed by Hind, pp. 229-230. So apparently it was unknown to him.

This locale, Foligno, is of some interest in relation to Lazzarelli. (For anyone new to the Tarot History Forum, Lazzarelli wrote a manuscript poem containing drawings from the "Mantegna"; he initially dedicated it to Borso d'Este, who died in 1471; Lazzarelli then erased the dedication and rededicated the manuscript to the Duke of Urbino, who reportedly accepted it; Trionfi thinks that Lazarelli designed the cards. See "Mantegna" thread on p. 2 of the Unicorn Terrace here and the "Lazzarelli hypothesis" on trionfi.com.)

For a few years (but after 1469) before going to Rome with Zane (probably 1473), Lazzarelli lived quite close to Foligno--well, Foligno is the nearest city--first in Camerino and then in Pioraco. In both places he worked for the Lord of Camerino as tutor to the latter's nephew. It was during his stay in Pioraco that Lazarelli met Zane, who was governor of the March of Ancona. See A. Fritsen, "Lodovico Lazarelli's Fasti," in Google Books, pp. 117-118, http://books.google.com/books?id=7Kzoxp ... dq=Fritsen+. Once in Rome, Zane soon became absorbed in his papal duties, and Lazzarelli was stranded, Fritsen relates.

Exactly when Lazzarelli left Pioraco is not totally clear to me. In the autograph copy of his Fasti, he says that he started the work in Pioraco and finished it five years later, 1480, in Rome (see Fritsen, p. 117, and Hanegraff's Introduction to Lodovico Lazarelli: The Hermetic Writings, p. 17). But Fritzen (on grounds that are not clear to me) says that he "backdated his work." April of 1473 is when Zane was appointed Papal legate to the Turks and sailed--from Rome, apparently--"with ten galleys to the East," as Fritzen says. Upon his return, Zane was appointed Patriarch of Antioch.

It is not clear to me why Zane couldn't have invited Lazzarelli to Rome on his return from the East, even as late at 1475, having met him as governor earlier.

It will be interesting to see why Bower gives 1473 as the latest date for this copy of the "Mantegna."

mikeh wrote: It will be interesting to see why Bower gives 1473 as the latest date for this copy of the "Mantegna."

Yes, would be. We attempted to get this expertise one year ago (when the object still was "hot", that is "not sold"). It was sold then. The expertise didn't arrive.

Price Realized * £181,250 * ($297,975)

December 2009

Christie is commercial. They're likely not interested to encourage research, but are interested to sell their items. I doubt, that your late request will be successful, but naturally would be enjoyed, if you really would get it.

The description says:

... an extremely rare and important set of 49 engravings, lacking one plate (Rhetorica, B. 40A) and including two plates from the S-series (B. 36 & 49), many sheets with a watermark Flower on a Stem with two Leaves (Northern Italy, circa 1465-1473), slightly later impressions with the fine shading of the figures and some details worn (the inclusion of two plates from the later S-series and the dating of the paper suggest a printing date around 1475), two plates respectively printed on one sheet, with 10-15 mm. margins at the sides, above and below, bound in a single gathering of 25 leaves, in the original sequence of the plates, the last four pages (with B. 63A-67A) with a short worm track at lower left, some sheets with minor staining, discolouration and a few foxmarks, generally in very good condition, re-cased in an early vellum binding (possibly 16th or 17th century), with new paste-downs and cloth ties(book of 49 engravings)

The author says ... "circa 1465 - 1473" ... which likely means, that the mentioned water sign was used in productions, which are dated to these years, not more.
That's not an exclusion for a printing in 1475 (as for instance suggested by Trionfi.com). Then the author states, that "the inclusion of two plates from the later S-series and the dating of the paper suggest a printing date around 1475", which is somehow a case of wrong logic, cause any paper analysis wouldn't touch the possibility, that the book had a later binding date as for instance 1485, 1495, 1505 etc., which allow would allow a mixing of e-series and s-series without any problem ... in other words, we (and also this author) simply don't know what happened.

mikeh wrote:If Bower's report is accurate, Hind has dated the S-series about 10 years too late. Hind's estimate for the E-series--twenty years earlier = c. 1465--is at the lower end of Bower's 1465-1473 estimate. Perhaps the paper report will shed more light.

So, sorry ... not a valid argument. The possible only new insight seems to be, that in some cases there was similar paper used in productions from ca. 1465-1473 ... the question, which productions this were, is unknown, but would be interesting to know and might be part of the content of Bower's expertise.

"two plates respectively printed on one sheet, with 10-15 mm. margins at the sides, above and below, bound in a single gathering of 25 leaves" ... seems to indicate, that two engravings are printed on one leave and as the whole book seems to be sorted in sequence, the S-series picture 36 should in this case be paired with either e-series 35 or 37 and the s-series picture 49 with either 48 or 50 of the e-series. In this way interpreted, the description would say, "two printings directly on one leave".
If this is correct concluded from the description ... then it wouldn't be a case of later binding. But anyway ... some incomplete sets of the e-series might have survived and might have been "repaired" at a later date by the addition of two s-series pictures.

Perhaps Peter Bower himself would be more interested in some intellectual exchange.
It seems to be this man ...
http://www.soane.org.uk/drawings/index. ... scheme=532
http://www.academicprojects.co.uk/tutor ... urseID=727
http://turnersociety.org.uk/2010.htm

I would be happy to try to communicate with Peter Bower himself; but first I need to understand the issues better.

Huck wrote

So, sorry ... not a valid argument. The possible only new insight seems to be, that in some cases there was similar paper used in productions from ca. 1465-1473 ... the question, which productions this were, is unknown, but would be interesting to know and might be part of the content of Bower's expertise.

I don't understand you. If the printing date of "around 1475" includes the printing of the two S-series prints. then the engravings for the S-series were done by 1475.

As I understand the quote from Christie's that you reproduced, there are three groups of prints.

1) The "many," with the watermark of a flower on a stem with two leaves, done earliest (1465-1473).

2) Those done slightly later, with "some details worn." It is unclear to me whether these have the same watermark.

3) The two S-series prints, done last, but by 1475. How Bower arrives at this date for the S-series is unclear.

The book appears to be a majority from the first group, supplemented by later impressions of the same plates, plus two from the later series.

More important in relation to the Lazzarelli hyothesis, I think, is the matter of where the printing was done, northern Italy. Neither Lazzarelli nor Zane was in northern Italy in 1475, your suggested date; nor 1473 or 1474 for Zane, and most likely also for Lazzarelli. I am not sure where the dividing line is between northern and central Italy, but it is certainly north of Rome, your suggested place of printing, which is where Lazzarelli and Zane were based at the time.

If the "Mantegna" was printed in northern Italy, and Lazzarelli had something to do with it, with or without Zane, he had to have done it between 1466 and 1473 (or without Zane, as late as 1475). After that, his connections are all Roman, and he (or Zane) would have had it done there.

1466 is when Lazzarelli moved to Venice, where he mainly lived until going to Camerino (although he also lived elsewhere: in 1468 he lived temporarily in Sacile). The 1466 date comes from his brother Filippo's memoir. He doesn't give the date specifically, but says he moved to Venice two years after "after Matteo had left Atri, summoned by Ferdinand" (Hanagraaf and Bouthoorn, Lodovico Lazzarelli: The Hermetic Writings and Related Documents, p. 291). This "Matteo" is Matteo di Capua, who from 1462 to 1464 was governor of Atri in the service of Ferrante, we are told in footnote 18.

Filippo also doesn't give the year when Lodovico started writing his book on the "Heathen Gods", but says it was right after being given the laurels by Frederick III, who stopped in Perdenone, near Sacile where Lodovico was living, in November on his way to Rome. That would have been November 1468. Then

Returning thereafter to Venice he composed three books On the Images of the Heathen Gods, a work he dedicated to Duke Federico of Urbino, from whom he received a worthy gift.

Filippo's memoir, as he said at the beginning, was meant as an introduction to a hoped-for publication of Lodovico's Fasti, which is modeled on Ovid. Therefore he mentioned every conceivable event that could establish Lodovico's credentials as a humanist (but not, to be sure, as a hermetist): ten eclogues, a poem commemorating a tournament in Padua, another commemorating a battle, and as a child elegies, letters in verse, epigrams, and pastorals. After the Imaginibus Deorum gentilium he "wrote various orations, in prose as well as verse." He composed a poem on the Sphere. After visiting the Duke of Camerino, he dedicated a poem to him, and was invited to be tutor to the Duke's nephew Fabrizio. There he started his Fasti, became acquainted with Zain, and moved to Rome. Filippo noted the eminent people he knew in Rome, but that was based on the internal evidence of the Fasti. There is nothing in the memoir about his time after the Fasti (e.g. his stay in Naples) except for when Lodovico returned home. If the "Mantegna" was from Lodovico's pre-Roman period, it is very odd that Filippo didn't mention it, since he was trying mightily to promote his brother's name. The entire memoir is in Hanagraaf and Bouthoorn, in Latin and English.

The other memoir, by Lodovico's nephew Fabrizio, is lost. We know about it from Giovanni Francesco Lancilotti's Ludovici Lazzarelli Septempedani..., Iesi 1765 (Hanagraaf and Bouthoorn p. 44). That is apparently the source of the information that for his Imaginibus Lodovico used pictures that he procured in Venice.

In conclusion: It seems to me that the report by Bower, despite unclarities and uncertainties, if accurate refutes the idea that Lazzarelli or Zane printed the "Mantegna" E series after 1473 in Rome. It is also difficult to imagine that Lazzarelli would have done it earlier unheralded by relatives who wrote memoirs about this period. To that I would add that the text and and the images contain discrepancies from one to the other that would not have occurred if the images followed the text (which I documented on the other thread starting on April 11, 2010, at viewtopic.php?f=12&t=463&start=80#p6547, continuing through April 17).

I continue to think that the most reasonable hypothesis is that the "Mantegna" was on sale, as a set or in groups of 10 images each, in Venice of 1468. That is where Lazzarelli got his images. Earlier, other images, the "stations of man," were used as modesl for one illumination in a manuscript in Bologna, 1467. Other prints in the same series. this time on the virtues, were glued into a 1468 manuscript now in St. Galen, Switzerland Various images from the 50 served as models for some of the figures in the murals of the Schifanoia Palace in Ferrara, 1469-1471. They were first printed as we know them, although in some cases missing some subsidiary elements such as borders and auxiliary animals, no later than 1465-1467 (some perhaps 1468) somewhere in Northern Italy, at the direction of some humanist still unknown, by an engraver still unknown, to the designs of an artist or artists still unknown but who drew in the Ferrarese style. My guess as to the artist, following Venturi, was Gelasso Gelassi. The program could have been initially conceived by any of many humanists, even Gelasso's first patron in Bologna, Bessarion in the 1450s. As to the identity of the engraver, I made some suggestions. Bower's report might shed more light.

Sorry Mike, I missed this post.

I don't understand you. If the printing date of "around 1475" includes the printing of the two S-series prints. then the engravings for the S-series were done by 1475.

As I understand the quote from Christie's that you reproduced, there are three groups of prints.

1) The "many," with the watermark of a flower on a stem with two leaves, done earliest (1465-1473).

2) Those done slightly later, with "some details worn." It is unclear to me whether these have the same watermark.

3) The two S-series prints, done last, but by 1475. How Bower arrives at this date for the S-series is unclear.

I think, he can estimate the time of paper production (through comparison with other products, which are datable; maybe there is a big database for used water signs), but not the year of the print.

The book appears to be a majority from the first group, supplemented by later impressions of the same plates, plus two from the later series.

More important in relation to the Lazzarelli hyothesis, I think, is the matter of where the printing was done, northern Italy.

It only says, that the most paper comes from there. But ... Sweynheim died. Calderinus, who traveled much, looks like the proper heir. He had a lot of contacts to Venice. Or Zane ... the point is, that Zane was perceived as a benevolent man by Lazzarelli and later he was deeply disappointed. This might have the base, that Zane generally made trouble and the attempted assassination case played a role, but also might have the reason, that Zane heated Lazzarelli for his "copyright."

For instance it's possible, that the papal clique wished the engravings for the Jubilee Year 1475, which would be the logical plan. After the Jubilee year the plates possibly were brought to Venice, for other buyers. Instead transporting complete sets, one would transport the copperplates. There are many possibilities. What we somehow have, is, that Lazzarelli used the motifs and found them in Venice. There are two possibilities: Either Lazzarelli formed the set himself from a given complete set, or he formed the Mantegna Tarocchi himself.

Zane went back to Northern regions in 1477, I think.

Neither Lazzarelli nor Zane was in northern Italy in 1475, your suggested date; nor 1473 or 1474 for Zane, and most likely also for Lazzarelli. I am not sure where the dividing line is between northern and central Italy, but it is certainly north of Rome, your suggested place of printing, which is where Lazzarelli and Zane were based at the time.

If the "Mantegna" was printed in northern Italy, and Lazzarelli had something to do with it, with or without Zane, he had to have done it between 1466 and 1473 (or without Zane, as late as 1475). After that, his connections are all Roman, and he (or Zane) would have had it done there.

It's not necessary to print all engravings in one single moment, the production might have gone over years ... why having so much used paper, which waits for a buyer? That's dead capital, and there is the problem that you need a place to store the engravings.

If it would have been done by one hand, wouldn't have the paper (likely) all the same water mark? So it looks, as if this is a collector's work. He got a greater part, but an incomplete collection. So he collected the others.

...

Filippo's memoir, as he said at the beginning, was meant as an introduction to a hoped-for publication of Lodovico's Fasti, which is modeled on Ovid. Therefore he mentioned every conceivable event that could establish Lodovico's credentials as a humanist (but not, to be sure, as a hermetist): ten eclogues, a poem commemorating a tournament in Padua, another commemorating a battle, and as a child elegies, letters in verse, epigrams, and pastorals. After the Imaginibus Deorum gentilium he "wrote various orations, in prose as well as verse." He composed a poem on the Sphere. After visiting the Duke of Camerino, he dedicated a poem to him, and was invited to be tutor to the Duke's nephew Fabrizio. There he started his Fasti, became acquainted with Zain, and moved to Rome. Filippo noted the eminent people he knew in Rome, but that was based on the internal evidence of the Fasti. There is nothing in the memoir about his time after the Fasti (e.g. his stay in Naples) except for when Lodovico returned home. If the "Mantegna" was from Lodovico's pre-Roman period, it is very odd that Filippo didn't mention it, since he was trying mightily to promote his brother's name. The entire memoir is in Hanagraaf and Bouthoorn, in Latin and English.

[/quote]

Yes, I had the book from the library and took some copies. But Hanegraaf don't find an answer what happened 1473-75. He perceives a contradiction in the sources. Zane made a long journey to Greece in this time. In autumn 1474 Zane, Giulio Varano and the duke Urbino make a "local crusade" together, 3 persons, which all have a relation to Lazzarelli. When this operation had success thanks to Urbino, Urbino gets big honors and the duke title ... and likely the manuscript of Lazzarelli. And Lazzarelli got 50 ducats. And Zane managed this, Lazzarelli likely didn't participate at the crusade and likely he wasn't in Rome during the festivities. So Zane had free hands, what he did with the pictures ... inside the papal net of the Riario family, with Bussi as papal librarian and his connections to Sweynheim.
It was Hind, who assumed, that the producer of the Ptolemy might have been the artist of the Mantegna Tarocchi. This leads immediately back to Sweynheim. Sweynheim is in Rome, close connected to Bussi and the papal circle. Zane knows Lazzarelli and is also closely connected to the papal circle. And the duke of Urbino is there. That's an direct way, that's close.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vb2iu3 ... ne&f=false
Just for the case, that I didn't give the link earlier. Just look at any link to Zane and you see, what means close in this question. Close means very close. Zane dominated the later pope Julius (Vincula in the book), for what reason, might be a mystery. Rome had in this time very much homoerotic dimensions.





That's the papal circle, just replace Platina (took Bussi's job) with Bussi, put Zane between Girolamo and Julius and the duke of Urbino to Pope Sixtus IV.
Bussi had close relations to Sweynheim, he "worked for him" somehow.

Huck wrote, in response to my inference from Christie's report, that the printing of their "Mantegna" was done in Northern Italy.

It only says, that the most paper comes from there.

You are saying, if I understand you, that they could have used paper from Northern Italy to print the "Mantegna" in time for the 1475 Jubilee in Rome. Why would they use paper from Northern Italy in Rome? Weren't there paper mills near Rome?

Huck wrote,

the point is, that Zane was perceived as a benevolent man by Lazzarelli and later he was deeply disappointed. This might have the base, that Zane generally made trouble and the attempted assassination case played a role, but also might have the reason, that Zane heated Lazzarelli for his "copyright."

Another possibility is that Lazzarelli was disappointed in Zane because Zane dropped him, once Zane got his big appointment. Zane had other things on his mind besides astrology.

Huck wrote

But Hanegraaf don't find an answer what happened 1473-75. He perceives a contradiction in the sources... Lazzarelli likely didn't participate at the crusade and likely he wasn't in Rome during the festivities. So Zane had free hands, what he did with the pictures .

On this issue, you wrote earlier (viewtopic.php?f=12&t=463&p=6556&hilit=Hanegraaf#p6556)

In the biography of Lazzarelli (by Hanegraaf) there is a contradiction mentioned regarding the presence of Lazzarelli in Rome. From his own words he should have arrived in Rome in 1475, from the condition of the meeting Lorenzo Zane and Lazzarelli it seems, that they met in 1473, when Lorenzo Zane was on his way to Rome.

The contradiction is between when and where Lazzarelli said he started his Fasti and when it is logical that Lazzarelli would have gone to Rome, i.e. the same time as Zane. Hanegraaf cites A. Fritsen, "Lodovico Lazarelli's Fasti," in Google Books, pp. 117-118, http://books.google.com/books?id=7Kzoxp ... en&f=false. In the autograph copy of his Fasti, Lazzarelli says that he started the work in Pioraco and finished it five years later, 1480, in Rome (see Fritsen, p. 117, and Hanegraff's Introduction to Lodovico Lazarelli: The Hermetic Writings, p. 17). Fritzen resolves the contradiction by saying that Lazzarelli "backdated his work." I don’t know the argument for that.

If he wasn’t in or near Rome 1473-1475 (or later), he was in Pioraco, a village east of Folgnio where the family he was tutoring had gone for an extended period to escape the plague. That’s where Lazzarelli says he was. It is closer to Northern Italy than Rome, to be sure; but it is still a long way from any engraving and printing establishment there. He would not have spent his last 50 ducats on a business venture he couldn’t monitor, i.e. the engraving, printing, and distributing of the work. But it would, indeed, have given Zane a free hand to do what he wanted with whatever pictures he had (copies of the ones in Lazzarelli's book, or Lazzarelli's originals). Yes, that is possible, before 1475. But he would have used paper from the Rome area for any Jubilee production, I think.

You go on

After the Jubilee year the plates possibly were brought to Venice, for other buyers. Instead transporting complete sets, one would transport the copperplates. There are many possibilities.

I can’t recall my source at the moment, but my impression is that after a lot of prints are made, the quality of the “fine manner” engravings from the same plate goes down, becomes unpleasantly fuzzy. That doesn’t happen to “broad manner” plates, one reason for the switch. If a lot of prints had been made for the Jubilee (with Northern paper!), the plates would have deteriorated. Christie’s would have mentioned any deterioration in quality compared to other examples of the “Mantegna.” So it is not likely that the ones at Christie’s were done after a big batch in Rome.

Zane went back to Northern regions in 1477, I think.

I don’t remember this. What is your source?

It was Hind, who assumed, that the producer of the Ptolemy might have been the artist of the Mantegna Tarocchi.

That point is not at issue. Hind’s suggestion---very tentative--was that Sweynheim might have recruited the engraver from Venice, after the engraver had done the “Mantegna” there.

What we somehow have, is, that Lazzarelli used the motifs and found them in Venice. There are two possibilities: Either Lazzarelli formed the set himself from a given complete set, or he formed the Mantegna Tarocchi himself.

Your first possibility divides into two: either there was a complete set of more than 50, or it was exactly 50, in 5 groups of 10. If the former, surely one or two examples would have survived, in a similar style but not part of the “Mantegna” or the ones Lazzarelli added in his book, precisely because of their similarity to the highly collectible (even in the 16th century) E-series “Mantegna.” If the complete set was the 50 we know, then all Lazzarelli did was to have some of them copied into the manuscript, plus a few more of his own design, which is what I think most likely happened.

mikeh wrote:Huck wrote, in response to my inference from Christie's report, that the printing of their "Mantegna" was done in Northern Italy.

It only says, that the most paper comes from there.

You are saying, if I understand you, that they could have used paper from Northern Italy to print the "Mantegna" in time for the 1475 Jubilee in Rome. Why would they use paper from Northern Italy in Rome? Weren't there paper mills near Rome?

As I developed it earlier ... "After the Jubilee year the plates possibly were brought to Venice, for other buyers. Instead transporting complete sets, one would transport the copperplates."

Huck wrote,

the point is, that Zane was perceived as a benevolent man by Lazzarelli and later he was deeply disappointed. This might have the base, that Zane generally made trouble and the attempted assassination case played a role, but also might have the reason, that Zane heated Lazzarelli for his "copyright."

Another possibility is that Lazzarelli was disappointed in Zane because Zane dropped him, once Zane got his big appointment. Zane had other things on his mind besides astrology.

Well, it seems, that Lazzarelli got promises from Zane, and Lazzarelli got definitely something through the connection of Zane. He had been earlier a stranded poet in the province (Camerino), and he became an accepted poet in Rome, and he got 50 ducats from the duke of Urbino. But Lazzarelli was a hungry poet and desired more. Zane himself got other problems than Lazzarelli interests, that's also true.

Huck wrote

But Hanegraaf don't find an answer what happened 1473-75. He perceives a contradiction in the sources... Lazzarelli likely didn't participate at the crusade and likely he wasn't in Rome during the festivities. So Zane had free hands, what he did with the pictures .

On this issue, you wrote earlier (viewtopic.php?f=12&t=463&p=6556&hilit=Hanegraaf#p6556)

In the biography of Lazzarelli (by Hanegraaf) there is a contradiction mentioned regarding the presence of Lazzarelli in Rome. From his own words he should have arrived in Rome in 1475, from the condition of the meeting Lorenzo Zane and Lazzarelli it seems, that they met in 1473, when Lorenzo Zane was on his way to Rome.

The contradiction is between when and where Lazzarelli said he started his Fasti and when it is logical that Lazzarelli would have gone to Rome, i.e. the same time as Zane. Hanegraaf cites A. Fritsen, "Lodovico Lazarelli's Fasti," in Google Books, pp. 117-118, http://books.google.com/books?id=7Kzoxp ... en&f=false. In the autograph copy of his Fasti, Lazzarelli says that he started the work in Pioraco and finished it five years later, 1480, in Rome (see Fritsen, p. 117, and Hanegraff's Introduction to Lodovico Lazarelli: The Hermetic Writings, p. 17). Fritzen resolves the contradiction by saying that Lazzarelli "backdated his work." I don’t know the argument for that.

Definitely Zane was sent in 1473 to Greece and was then an important man in the still lasting operations against the Osmans, somehow as a follower of the cardinal Orvieto (who came back "in triumph" in spring 1473). After coming back begin of 1474 Zane was involved in the crusade against rebellious cities around Rome, together with Varano (Lazzarelli's sponsor) and the later pope Julius (Zane's special friend and later foe), and Montefeltro (who gave 50 ducats to Lazzarelli for the manuscript. The 1474 operation is described in the source, which I gave with ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=vb2iu3 ... ne&f=false
.... the biography of pope Julius. The jorney to Greece I reconstructed from some gathered information here and there, a further military escapade of Zane in October 1475, which is related to the operation of summer/autumn 1474 is given by ...
http://www.condottieridiventura.it/cond ... ICCOLO.htm
... the biography of Vitelli (see 1475). The same is also reflected here ...
http://www.condottieridiventura.it/cond ... erugia.htm
... (see 1475)

If he wasn’t in or near Rome 1473-1475 (or later), he was in Pioraco, a village east of Folgnio where the family he was tutoring had gone for an extended period to escape the plague. That’s where Lazzarelli says he was. It is closer to Northern Italy than Rome, to be sure; but it is still a long way from any engraving and printing establishment there. He would not have spent his last 50 ducats on a business venture he couldn’t monitor, i.e. the engraving, printing, and distributing of the work. But it would, indeed, have given Zane a free hand to do what he wanted with whatever pictures he had (copies of the ones in Lazzarelli's book, or Lazzarelli's originals). Yes, that is possible, before 1475. But he would have used paper from the Rome area for any Jubilee production, I think.

You go on

After the Jubilee year the plates possibly were brought to Venice, for other buyers. Instead transporting complete sets, one would transport the copperplates. There are many possibilities.

I can’t recall my source at the moment, but my impression is that after a lot of prints are made, the quality of the “fine manner” engravings from the same plate goes down, becomes unpleasantly fuzzy. That doesn’t happen to “broad manner” plates, one reason for the switch. If a lot of prints had been made for the Jubilee (with Northern paper!), the plates would have deteriorated. Christie’s would have mentioned any deterioration in quality compared to other examples of the “Mantegna.” So it is not likely that the ones at Christie’s were done after a big batch in Rome.

I've read, that copperplates might have been used 3000-9000 times. Books reached issues of 200-300 pieces, how much engravings sold in the Jubilee year would have made a "really good business" ? Possibly a similar number. So the plates might have wandered soon to another region, possibly to Venice or another center.

Zane went back to Northern regions in 1477, I think.

I don’t remember this. What is your source?

I said "I think", which you should translate with "I've no notes". I've no definite notes for Zane's stay "after his Roman scandal" (winter 1476/77), likely the person Zane turned to "refugee mode" (it might well be that Zane had to fear assassins send by the later pope Julius or things like that) and in 1478 appear notes like: "Bishop of Brescia, Lorenzo Zane, was exiled for having disseminated state secrets confraternity of the Scuola Grande of San Rocco is based." Then he had trouble with the state of Venice. His stay since this winter seems to have been more Northern Italy, less "region of Rome". Perhaps he was involved in the dark businesses of Girolamo Riario, who was interested in territory in Northern Italy, but that's only speculation. Zane had a high career till this dramatic winter 1476/77 (the later Julius fought with "tears in his eyes" to make him a cardinal) and then a deep fall (he never became cardinal).
Well, somehow Zane recovered from this problem (getting some important positions later again), but the details of this process are unknown. The details mentioned by Christine Shaw, 1997, in the Julius biography about this scandal I found mentioned nowhere else (in spite of their striking importance in regard of the persons of pope Julius, pope Sixtus and Girolamo) ... so one has to assume, that it is new material, possibly based on the opened access to the Vatican library. I only know the limited google-representation, perhaps this text is something for your library researches.
Zane is general a "not much observed person", although it seems clear, that he was of big importance.

Recently it appeared as a sensation, that Montefeltro was involved in the attack on the Medici brothers. So it seems, that a lot of the dark sides of the Sixtus-IV-period had been protected and unpublished long time.

It was Hind, who assumed, that the producer of the Ptolemy might have been the artist of the Mantegna Tarocchi.

That point is not at issue. Hind’s suggestion---very tentative--was that Sweynheim might have recruited the engraver from Venice, after the engraver had done the “Mantegna” there.

I remember (dark), that you found evidence, that Hind knew about Sweynheim before 1938. If this is so, Hind possibly didn't calculate, that Sweynheim might have been the engraver himself. He didn't calculate, that Sweynheim might have had an intensive career as engraver before he became printer in Mainz.

What we somehow have, is, that Lazzarelli used the motifs and found them in Venice. There are two possibilities: Either Lazzarelli formed the set himself from a given complete set, or he formed the Mantegna Tarocchi himself.

Your first possibility divides into two: either there was a complete set of more than 50, or it was exactly 50, in 5 groups of 10. If the former, surely one or two examples would have survived, in a similar style but not part of the “Mantegna” or the ones Lazzarelli added in his book, precisely because of their similarity to the highly collectible (even in the 16th century) E-series “Mantegna.” If the complete set was the 50 we know, then all Lazzarelli did was to have some of them copied into the manuscript, plus a few more of his own design, which is what I think most likely happened.

... ... as you know, I think different. For the Tarot development we have, that the theories formed a "complete Tarot ex nihilo with 4x14+22" and any research led to nothing. Turning the tables with the 5x14-theory to a slower development with evolutionary steps found the curious result, that there's a lot to research and some evidence for this theory. For the Mantegna Tarocchi we have a similar development: Hind assumed a similar construction "ex nihilo with 5x10" and overlooked the evolutionary version, even as "just as a possibility". The next researcher generation - following Hind - couldn't find the engraver.
Following the alternative - evolutionary development - we find an engraver or at least a solution, who had done it.

Anyway ... the evolutionary theory is interesting and feeds the motor to revisit the documents. ... ... Even it would be wrong, it would be worthwhile, as it drives this other theories to defend themselves and to become more precise in their evaluations.