tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87499109337480611462024-02-21T18:34:56.387-08:00An Empress in Palermo for the "Alessandro Sforza" tarotMichael S Howardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06488567669455421279noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8749910933748061146.post-18709147405520871052016-11-10T23:28:00.000-08:002019-10-12T16:01:11.457-07:00(This blog-essay was originally at <a href="http://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1112">http://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1112</a> and <a href="http://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1112#p17322">http://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1112#p17322)</a><br />
<br />
The cover article for <span style="font-style: italic;">The Playing Card</span> of April-June 2016, is "New Insights into the So-called Alessandro Sforza
Deck", by Emilia Maggio. It is her second article on that deck, the
first being one a couple of years ago on the Stag Rider. Both, and also
the article on the Rothschild cards by her countrywoman Christina
Fiorini in 2006, fit well into my own hypotheses about the evolution of
the tarot, which I will address at some point. However Maggio's
arguments are not very good, as I will explain. First I want to
summarize what they are.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">1. Maggio's identification of the figure, its deck, and its earliest possible date.</span><br />
<br />
Her
point of departure is an Empress card in a collection of Italian cards,
15th-19th century, at the Palazzo Abatellus, Palermo. After Maggio
noticed it, attendees at the 2015 Italian ICPS convention in Palermo had
a chance to look at it, too. It and a Two of <span style="font-style: italic;">Bastoni</span>
had their inner layers of paper separated from the outer painted layer.
The inner layers were recycled notarial acts on which the dates 1427
and 1428 could clearly be read. <br />
<br />
<img alt="Image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqXMm6ZTCDL7CcDTQMlyeWpwna92dAnjBIZm5saSJzrtjR-b2JdsB77dE8OmBF_wg_6pEK8CocS2y-uIK0ZayBul4WrosDXGLUPrPN4be1dezClPqX1Mo22hdiy-tig146ueE10vgQ64E/s350/EmpressCatania.jpg" /><br />
She
adds that stylistically the two cards are very similar to the Castello
Ursino cards in Catania: she compares the Palermo Empress to the lady on
the Catania "Fame" card, as she calls it (below left, with the Charles
VI version next to it): their faces are very similar. <br />
<img alt="Image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjT8k8Gk10-mwPK9tlCQ3wHzDmFAee3JBn9XNPU7fWaIOrgj5ClZ4aQz9DX0sxZLNh0Ba03IjwShofSsC-C8reusJIITIC6orWwoPWtyGfmmHsBQxxH9f7QxxE7SWX4j9rjGd8c7fT664g/s470/CataniaCharlesVIFame.jpg" /><br />
<br />
Besides
the Empress, there was also a Two of Bastoni in Palermo that looks like
it is from the same deck, as can be seen by comparing it with the
Catania Six of Bastoni. As it happens, the Catania group is missing
those cards. As further confirmation, she says that the Stag Rider, of
the Catania group, also shows traces of writing and the date 1428, as
"accidentally discovered by the staff at Castello Ursino in 2014".<br />
<br />
<img alt="Image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuZu5RiIeLqVx4oeS68hU5pievg0-YjohyphenhyphenHHX30UsF0W7RNdC_NxGyLJGViEknlxIXYC3hHEJpcrWjU0PJodowUQvsqGmXkbPmB1xn-3l_gDL0c4ZW51UqrDSJS-hZ0L_Mho8gM30ROlY/s400/Staves2.jpg" /> <br />
<br />
That
the card is of an Empress is clear from the attributes of the fleur de
lys and the globe, Emperor-attributes in art of the time. She gives
several examples, one from 1375 Catalonia and the other from c. 1430 (in
the text, "first half of the 15th century") Piedmont (below; the fleur
de lys decorates Charlemagne's robe, second from the right):<br />
<br />
<img alt="Image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnvgVVbbfL1fKaLLXkexJpIIiq-Me2NRTH1bHRC8207NulGN4HDRx8_10M_hSel5-B6HvZDrAbsGpoSh5G7w7CNayoLWrgwU-XXlcrifoBVajnIjkyqbnnDNa3vmNK2OnGEZNsrPHUeOU/s400/Mansa.jpg" /><br />
<br />
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEhLIzvVH3fQgbSqWjICQvfrZJqGGtj4FTnNCUUY1gknpO_t6_v2YDp5T8RJ1e7FTN9w54zat1fVts8fJWA2yxIkv_urb_wOE7PJKo87skY4GWIMSTvTinNEbWBxh7buz9lsgBsgrAj_Y/s1600/worthies.jpg" width="650" /><br />
<br />
Charlemagne,
the first Holy Roman Empire, was traditionally associated with that
symbol (as was, to be sure the Kingdom of France). Maggio says that the
Palermo Empress and the Charles VI Emperor both have tripartite globes,
exaggerating the extent of their rule to "the boundaries of the known
world". (I do not doubt that interpretation, but I do not see that
division into three on the cards. I don't think it matters.)<br />
<br />
The
same attributes are also on the Rothschild and Charles VI cards, both of
which also have two small figures at the bottom of the card, male
instead of female. In the Rothschild, she points out, the poses of the
figure are quite complementary to those on the Palermo Empress.<br />
<br />
<img alt="Image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKOHVVf-Ww9wkXHTuizfj9CcpFk8ELQwUJ0YALOOjFF1SMdXYCO0lqdiLxd6z0Xk_O4xAuFPvAm1XVOf7J9TeCg7Ea1MHFWIgN6DFvWozub6-k29LUfiMQ5DmNrODgYpJwYzCVFG3fpX4/s350/rothChVIEmp.jpg" /><br />
<br />
In
the Palermo Empress and Rothschild Emperor, they represent the clemency of the Emperor.
In the Charles VI, they are two vassals of the Emperor, perhaps related
to the four kings in the deck, of which Alessandro Sforza, or someone
else entitled to display the "diamond ring" emblem, may be one (vassal,
that is).<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">2. Maggio's dating of the deck and of the Charles VI</span><br />
<br />
First,
we have to see the similarity between the Catania and the Charles VI,
at least in some cards. For Maggio, that is grounds for considering them
done around the same time. Another pair, besides the Fame card, is that
of Time, or the Old Man:<br />
<br />
<img alt="Image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvUVxd1Df2QesXrJN8hiaJVEWb2Xg4wo1mnxNcyhIdJxMFxHrec3xy1PWj4_a43YtEWnr946M_n8dWEYpLPlS2QGcenjihLBJygQ_-g60uuQnbmb3qpLnthZFnGTsjMEiG7Po4vzDfOUE/s400/CataniaCharlesVITime.jpg" /><br />
<br />
The
Charles VI Emperor, Maggio argues, is likely modeled on Sigismund, who
became emperor in 1433, then in his 60s. The Charles VI Emperor's
"crooked nose, white beard, and short eyebrows" are similar to
Sigismund's (I don't see a crooked nose, just similar ones). If so, the
famous Pisanello portrait (<a class="postlink" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigismund,_Holy_Roman_Emperor">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigismund ... an_Emperor</a>)
makes him look younger than he was. She points out that the Cary-Yale
and Brera-Brambilla are more closely related to that portrait, in that
the hat is similar and the face more similar; also,the attendant holding
the crown might symbolize Filippo Maria Visconti himself, who was the
custodian of the Iron Crown of Italy, and in whose city Sigismund in
fact was crowned with that crown and title.So the idea that another deck
might do the same is not unthinkable. Also, there is a portrait in an
illumination of a document from the Council of Constance, where
Sigismund played a major role, that is more similar to the Charles VI
Emperor.<br />
<br />
<img alt="Image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdBesolE4BPxzzojRDtktnWyKJ2sbRDyLRNgclOgpjnlojGZizfQXL5qBR2paJKfNKfvYwlCV9q_calQR6RfsPqpdxWFGdOHHjbYyl6_c_XJbVrei-EFovPkzKxV9ywhqYPgX9OpafiPk/s400/EmperorSigismund.jpg" /><br />
<br />
The
Palermo Empress, then, would be Barbara of Cilli, Sigismund's wife. She
did not accompany her husband to Italy, so there would be less
resemblance to her actual features. However that same document from
Constance is an approximation of what we see on the card, mainly in the
hair, while the crown is a simplification of hers. (Oddly, I see two
women with elaborate crowns in the illumination, one accompanied by a
young commoner. Is she perhaps the ghost of Pope Joan?! But perhaps the
illuminator simply wanted to portray her twice.)<br />
<br />
<img alt="Image" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi71ssyAafA2VjbBwOBkcdH9glae2o9kG-jonPA7A4ZY3TMisDIl8zT2remYkLSV_mU3JRKPM22RoLFlUlNHX9G34syyjxQ257UzySIWH6b0Vai499o2Thxey_o4nvPdwGWGmIzEOy-LHw/s400/EmpressBarbara.jpg" /><br />
<br />
Maggio also points to the resemblance of the Charles VI Pope's face to Eugenius IV, pope from 1431 to 1447. <br />
<br />
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE1qPym56aS61JVbhdiL77ExEr2xHh4BSkS2ZvYUhGATQtUX1sm4acg9Ol6iz5XEaaI2u0VlxkruV0RzyEfJjjAz4bp-CK7QaXsIXb0XLiv90UbfXIT4UWypIgEqHRXlfb26OCgXUnZUM/s1600/EugeneIV.jpg" width="650" /><br />
<br />
Maggio
thinks that it is most likely that the "Charles VI" was painted in the
lifetimes of both Sigismund and Eugenius, specifically to commemorate
the crowning of Sigismund:<br />
<blockquote class="uncited">
<div>
These
elements point to a hypothesis of the Catania and Paris packs being
devised in the mid-1430s to celebrate Sigismund's visit to Italy. Early
tarot sets were produced for special occasions, such as weddings or
career advancement:a state visit such as that of the emperor would
inevitably be marked by, and remembered with, the creation of luxury
items made to impress and sometimes used as gifts.</div>
</blockquote>
In
consequence, Maggio downplays the idea that the deck was produced for
Alessandro Sforza. He, or one of the Estense, may be simply one of
several personages on the cards, cast in the role of Charlemagne's
palladins and other associates in relation to the Emperor himself, in a
chivalric metaphor.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">3, Critique of Maggio: The dates on the paper.</span><br />
<br />
That
the Polermo Empress has the date 1427 and 1428, and Catania Stag Rider
1428, written on Notrial Acsts whose paper forms the inner layer of the
cards is not that interesting in itself. The real question is, how near
to those years are the cards likely to be? I know that late 15th century
watermarks in the case of the <span style="font-style: italic;">Sermones de Ludo</span>s
led Decker to propose "around 1500" for the Sermones. This, like the
Notorial Act, is on a handwritten manuscript, not machine-printed
material. I cannot think of other cases where datings have been made for
manuscripts based on watermarks or other roughly datable marks on the
paper. <br />
<br />
What is fresh my mind is something on printed material.
Franco Pratesi recently wrote about the Third Rosenwald Sheet, or more
precisely, the Leinfelden copy of that sheet. It had stored with it four
sheets of "legal opinions" from a book that was printed in many copies
and editions. The museum told Franco, by email, "The Tarot sheet has
been found within these printed sheets", to which Franco adds, "Sono due
fogli di carta stampata di un volume di pareri giuridici in folio",
they are two sheets of printed pages from a volume of bound legal
opinions". In fact they are two copies of the same two pages, so that
it is sure that they are not pages cut out of a book, but either
rejected copies of pages, due to some error, or pages left over for some
reason. By finding the right edition, that of 1501, he was able to say
something about when the cards were probably made: (<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1105">viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1105</a>):<br />
<blockquote class="uncited">
<div>
Appare improbabile che queste carte siano rimaste a lungo a
disposizione dopo la stampa. L’editoria si basava su un numero limitato
di copie e i fogli di carta non utilizzati erano subito richiesti per le
più varie applicazioni, anche come carta per involgere merce varia.
Insomma, aver trovato il 1501 come data di origine in pratica
corrisponde all’incirca anche alla data di utilizzazione. Lo stesso vale
per la località; non è pensabile che questi fogli scartati da una
tipografia abbiano viaggiato a distanza prima di essere utilizzati; ciò
sarebbe stato possibile per le pagine di un libro finito, ma non per
residui di lavorazione; quindi i fogli furono incollati al terzo foglio
Rosenwald vicino al tempo e [14] al luogo di produzione, Perugia 1501.
In base a quanto abbiamo saputo sulla sorte di questa edizione, possiamo
anche supporre che questi avanzi di lavorazione fossero stati tenuti in
serbo per la produzione di ulteriori copie del libro che per le
questioni legali insorte non vennero poi ultimate; in tal caso, la
datazione relativa si potrebbe estendere fino al 1515; quello che è
certo è che la data non poteva precedere il 1501 se non eventualmente di
pochi mesi, necessari per il completamento dell’impaginazione del
libro. <br />
<br />
(It seems unlikely that these pages remained available
for long after printing. The publishing business was based on a limited
number of copies and the unused sheets of paper were immediately
required for the most varied applications, even as paper to wrap up
cargo. In short, having found 1501 as a practical date for the source,
it also corresponds roughly to the date of utilization. The same applies
for the town; it is unthinkable that these sheets discarded in printing
would have traveled a distance before being used; this would have been
possible for the pages of a finished book, but not for residues from
processing; thus the sheets were stuck to the third Rosenwald sheet near
to the time and [14] place of production, Perugia 1501. Based on what
we have learned about the fate of this edition, we can also assume that
these leftovers from processing were held in reserve for the production
of additional copies of the book that because of legal matters were then
not fated to be completed; in this case, the related date could extend
until 1515; what is certain is that the date could not be earlier than
1501 except possibly by a few months, required to complete the layout of
the book.</div>
</blockquote>
Would the same considerations apply to
the pages of a handwritten book? The first of these clearly does,
namely that any pages discarded for errors would quite soon be used for
other purposes. The other circumstance is that of an interrupted
publishing process due to the fact that the printers of this edition
were hauled into court for a case that didn't resolve until 1515. I do
not know if some similar problem could have arisen in 1528, with the
eventual outcome--perhaps as long as 15 years--of the pages not being
used. However there is the additional problem, it seems to me, of ruling
out that the occurrence of the dates is not in reference to something
recent but of several years before, citing a precedent, perhaps. It
would be useful to know more about the context of these dates in the
Acts. Perhaps it is not possible. If so, we are left in a state of
doubt.<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />4. Critique of Maggio: the Emperor and the Pope</span><br />
<br />
Why
should whatever resemblance there is between the Pisanello painting, or
the Constance illumination, and the Emperor card lead us to think that
the card was painted during Sigismund's tenure as Emperor? In the case
of the Cary-Yale and Brera-Brambilla, which is more believably based on
Pisanello, the decks were produced, according to all the experts, in the
1440s. This is after Sigismund's death. It is true that Sigismund was
worth commemorating in Milan, because he received the Iron Crown there
in 1431, a fact only applies to the Milan decks. Sigismund did not even
visit Florence or Ferrara, if Maggio's report of his itinerary is to be
believed. Why should either of these cities commemorate him in
particular at all?<br />
<br />
The resemblances between the Charles VI
Emperor and that of Sigismund's portrait are not in fact that great.
They may have been there, such as they are, to give a nod to Sigismund
while the differences show a primary intention to paint a generic
Emperor. It is possible that these Emperors are modeled on a previous
card in the game of "VIII Emperors", recorded in Ferrara in 1423. At
that time there was no Emperor, and in fact Sigismund's claim had been
undermined by Charles IV's heir-apparent Wenceslaus while the latter was
alive (d. 1419). There was no clear Emperor until 1433. Both wore
beards, as did Charles IV. Also, it must be remembered that the next
emperor wasn't crowned until 1452. Sigimund remains the most current
emperor until that date. <br />
<br />
The resemblance between the Charles VI
Pope and Eugenius IV is more convincing. But why should it only be worth
commemorating during his lifetime? Eugenius IV had distinguished
himself by residing in both Ferrara, until the plague broke out, and in
Florence, the latter for an extended period of five years. That in
itself is worth commemorating in a deck from one of those cities. And
even this only applies to the Charles VI, not the other decks with
similar emperors, because we don't have the popes, if there ever were
any, for those decks. <br />
<br />
5<span style="font-weight: bold;">. Critique of Maggio: Are the Palermo Empress and Two of Bastoni from the same deck as the Catania cards?</span><br />
<br />
All the Catania cards have an orange cast to them. The
Palermo cards do not. So I wonder if perhaps the Palermo cards do not
belong to the Catania set after all. But I do not know about orange
sheens; perhaps they are the result of different storage methods or
things they have come into contact with. It would be nice if we had
information about the dimensions of the cards, including the thickness,
and their backs. However I don't think this matters much. They do seem
of the same time and place. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">6. Another criticism of Maggio </span><br />
<br />
She
says, "Early tarot sets were produced for special occasions, such as
weddings or career advancement". Franco tells me there are no records of
tarots ever being given as a wedding presents in Florence. On the other
hand, it seems to me that the Visconti had a long history of giving
paper products (missals, psalters, etc.) at such occasions, with thinly
disguised portraits of themselves as one saint or another. So it
depends. We do know that Sigismond Malatesta got a deck shortly after
his victory for Florence at Angieri, which might qualify as a "special
occasion".<br />
<br />
What else can be said to date the Palermo Empress and other cards mentioned?<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">7. Events worth commemorating in the life of Alessandro Sforza.</span><br />
<br />
If
the deck of present interest was indeed for Alessandro Sforza, as
weakly suggested by the Ferrarese diamond ring emblem on the shield
(granted by the Estense), and luxury decks were for big occasions, his
big military victory was in 1435. In 1444, it is true, he gained Pesaro
from Galeazzo Malatesta, but for 20.000 florins, and so coins rather
than swords. In 1445. Alessandro suffered a rather devastating defeat at
Assisi. In 1446 his brother Francesco installed him at Parma,
but that is hardly worth commemorating with a King of Swords. The Estense, who
whose emblem it was, weren't particularly good at warfare. Borso never
had a big victory in battle and was usually on the opposite side from
Florence. Ercole studied the martial arts in Naples, but in warfare his
only distinction was humiliation in the "salt war" of 1482-4, and he never
fought a war again.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">8. The significance of the "palle" on the Charles VI Chariot.</span><br />
<br />
They
are in groups of seven along the lower canopy of the card. Red palle
(balls) of various numbers (5 to 8) in a similar pattern on a yellow
background was a device of the Medici and in Florence. It is impossible
to date the cards by this because even after they got the right to
include the French fleur de lys in 1465 (which has nothing to do with
the card's use of the fleur de lys on the staff, as it is not part of
the "palle" configuration), they continued to use versions without it,
e.g. the tomb of Duke Cosimo I has five, per <a class="postlink" href="http://www.theflorentine.net/lifestyle/2012/03/the-medici-balls/">http://www.theflorentine.net/lifestyle/ ... ici-balls/</a>).
But the palle at least tends to locate the sponsorship of the Charles
VI in Florence, and probably also its production. And thus probably also
the cards like them, the Catania. In 1433-34 the supporters of the
Medici were rather busy saving Cosimo from first execution and then
exile. But after 1435 they had more cause to celebrate, especially after
the triumph of being the seat of the Conclave. In this scenario the
palle on the chariot might identify, for some, the charioteer, despite
his condottiere's hat, with Cosimo, giving him the triumphal entry into
Florence that he never had or wanted in real life. I doubt whether the
Charles VI was a gift for a young boy, such as Lorenzo, because it was
most likely not made mainly for playing with, just looking at. That
would be hard even for a boy 13 or 14 year old. (For another possible
occasion, see my item 9 below.) <br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">9. An occasion for a deck with Eugenius IV in the Pope card.</span><br />
<br />
An
occasion for Eugenius's face being the model for the Pope of the
Charles VI might be his residence in the city 1438-1443. The game of
triumphs was then illegal in Florence and occasionally the subject of
fines. However it was played nonetheless, as Franco Pratesi has shown.
One motive for the Charles VI might have been to convince Eugenius that
it was an educational game about life and the road to salvation, so as
to get the Church to make this exception to its opposition to the
proliferation of card games. It wouldn't hurt to put his portrait on the
Pope card, to show the importance of the pope, and so Eugenius, in the
allegory. This may even have been the first time the Pope appeared in
the cards, inserted after the Emperor to show the Pope's superiority.
For whatever reason, tarot was added to those very few games that were
excluded from the prohibitions the next time the Council considered the
matter, in 1450. The exception in 1450 and the previous non-exception
from provisions were documented by Franco Pratesi.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">10. Relationship of the Palermo Empress with the Rothschild cards, with the similar Emperor.</span><br />
<br />
The Rothschild cards are generally given to Florence. Bellosi in 1985 ("A drawing by Giovanni del Ponte and some tarot cards". <span style="font-style: italic;">Art Bulletin</span>,
1985, 30, pp. 27-35) noted the similarity of the Rothschild Knight of
Bastoni to a "St. George and the dragon" painted by Del (or Dal) Ponte
(1385-c.1437) in 1434; the two can be seen together at <a class="postlink" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhDbVg17L2KSYFhWhyD1gsD-tEggB4jpDqTtLx24Fe-yuKwbSE33rSXmrYX8T68DhDc5CIf87vOdxGBDHCamtRPSDfD34sqmWd8WE0pPcVfZLlnxwbGt-f6QSj-fte5_mOvi8ruIY4OkHM/s350/roth-knight_merged.jpg">http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OAmxNlFNtfI/U ... merged.jpg</a>. For more on the Rothschild cards and Dal/Del Ponte, see the thread <a class="postlink-local" href="http://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1005">viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1005</a>.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">11. Comparison of the Catania Stag Rider with work of Lo Scheggia and Apollonio di Giovanni.</span><br />
<br />
The
comparison of the Stag Rider to a cassone lid by Lo Scheggia
(1409-1486), a Florentine artist whose workshop is known to have
produced playing cards (in 1447, per Franco Pratesi), was noticed by
Huck. Maggio in her earlier article saw a resemblance to a c. 1450 Virgil
illumination by Apollonio di Giovanni (c. 1416-1465), I think regarding
the same feature, male breasts ("pectorals"). Lo Scheggio is said to
have had his own workshop starting in 1429. Unfortunately Apollonio's
documentation is more meager, starting only in 1456. For pictures,
links, and references on Lo Scheggia at <a class="postlink-local" href="http://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=964">viewtopic.php?f=11&t=964</a>. For Apollonio, I used Google.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">12. Comparison of the Catania Charioteer with Dal Ponte's "triumph of fame" and Lo Scheggia's Birth Tray.</span><br />
<br />
The full Dal Ponte cassone panel can be seen at <a class="postlink" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2JHVo3pKJtwcziepLdw3Ki-wb_7U8uAcu48o0X4CR_U-bh_QDVky1S9stWEQBPU0Tscm3VM89ijtglYRWiRblf4LDG-0jrPD5pLRq0HoUcYVjo1IVaNiIWRQrVc1aWrHx2-Samxrl1UIk/s640/CallmanPL25.JPG">http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xlbf6GdiYPk/U ... anPL25.JPG</a>, which comes from Callman, <span style="font-style: italic;">Apollonio di Giovanni</span>;
Callman says that it is "1420s or 1430s" (p. 12). What is significant
for the Catania Chariot card are the two "grooms" (or captives), whose
legs can be seen on the Catania (<a class="postlink" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRYWyJuCXXeALrTqYvfvW5t_bah8ubUnUqzjDoc9ne6AQ7vVbdW-diGohKUZvv-Puc8dZPIAlAKL-0Jz4BTWHUkOCcka_HZw8kcpotV3c9usvGUiBBF8gLtzpNBDgzBF3zgrz6dTjG8rc/s400/CallmanPL25DET.jpg">http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JPeIvYIYEI8/U ... L25DET.jpg</a>).
The horses are symmetrical, even if their heads point inward instead of
outward as on the card. Everything is quite stylized in both. Dal Ponte
died in 1437. He could have made the Catania, or something similar; his
cassone subjects included Petrarchan themes and the seven virtues. But
other considerations (see item 11) point to Lo Scheggia for the Catania
itself, and Dal Ponte just for the Rothschild. At a later point in his
life Lo Scheggia could also have made the Charles VI, which does not
have the grooms but is in general livelier. If the Charles VI was made
for the Medici, Lo Scheggio is a known artist for them, doing the
Lorenzo "birth tray" of 1449 (no groom, but one captive; two "triumph of
fame" illuminations by him, however, do have the two grooms; see <a class="postlink-local" href="http://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=858&start=60">viewtopic.php?f=11&t=858&start=60</a>). <br />
<br />
I
do not know if there was any personal relationship between Dal Ponte
and Lo Scheggio. Both are known by nicknames ("By the Bridge" and "The
Splinter"). If Lo Scheggio had his own workshop in 1429, he would have
been 20 at the time; so I wonder how independent he really was then. As
for Apollonio, his "triumph of fame" has the two grooms but in a very
different depiction; I notice that Apollonio has a "naked boys", c.
1450-1460, similar to the famous one by Lo Scheggio, c. 1450, but
pulling on poppy seed pods. Apollonio seems to have used Scheggia
motifs. <br />
<br />
Maggio sees the Catania and the Charles VI as essentially
the same in style. To me the Charles VI seems more the
characteristically Renaissance style initiated by Lo Scheggio's brother
Massacchio, and the Rothschild Emperor a whole epoch away, flat and
medieval compared to the illusion of depth, as a result of shading, in
the Charles VI. The Palermo Empress complements the Rothschild Emperor.
The Catania cards seem of the same time period or a little later.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">13. How the cards fit into my hypothesis for the development of the tarot. out of 16 special cards in Milan.</span><br />
<br />
For
myself, I like to see the card and its deck in terms of the point of
view I expressed in Pratesi's note on the Cary-Yale
(notably my post at <a class="postlink-local" href="http://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1086&start=30#p16731">viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1086&start=30#p16731</a>),
namely, that the 16 triumphs of the Visconti-inspired deck-type, seen
later in the Cary-Yale, came to Florence in the early to middle 1430s.
Florence then added other subjects to one version of the deck, while
removing the theological virtues and Prudence. Another version kept all
four but also added the new ones and at some point added even more, to become
Minchiate. The "Alessandro Sforza" would be an expression of the tarot
at the earlier state of development, earlier than the "Charles VI" and
as early as within a couple of years of the Rothschild, c. 1435. At
least so far, there are no surviving cards in the "Alessandro Sforza"
that are not part of the Cary-Yale's hypothesized 16. That deck may
still have had the theologicals plus prudence, a possibility entertained
by Maggio in her other article (p. 229 for Charity, but not very
convincing). Then we see the replacements for the theologicals in the
otherwise similar but somewhat later "Charles VI." Or, conceivably, the
substitutions were already made by the time of the "Alessandro Sforza"
and are now lost.<br />
<br />
Needless to say, all this is still rather
hypothetical, with many alternative scenarios. But the dates on the
paper used to make the Palermo Empress and the manner of her depiction
(similar to the Rothschild Emperor) have been a big help in fitting
various extant cards into the slots it provides. I end up with roughly
the same dating as Maggio for the Catania and Palermo, 1435-1438,
reaffirming a possible connection to Alessandro Sforza, but the next decade for
the Charles VI, for the Medici. There remains, to be sure, much
uncertainty about dates and deck composition, but much less so about
place. Given the long life of the Scheggia workshop, until at least
1470, some or all of the Charles VI might even be "added cards", as the
tarot grew, but by the same shop and done so as to blend in with the
others. It may even at some point have had an Empress.
Michael S Howardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06488567669455421279noreply@blogger.com0