The "Undocumented Prelude" gives an introduction to Moakley's general approach, at least to the cards that she refers to there. It must be borne in mind that she is not saying that there actually were such processions at Carnival, but only that the sequence is like such a procession.
In the century following these cards, Italian sources show that at least in some places, especially Ferrara, the cards were fair game for such a "ribald" interpretation: in the
Carte Parlante of Aretino , the
Invectives of Lolio and Imperiali, a comedy of Notturno, and various other works. Others, Piscina in Piedmont and an anonymous writer in central Italy, had a moralistic interpretation, seeing the cards as a guide to life.
Since Moakley's time, these works have become well known to tarot researchers, both in the original language and in English translation. For Carte Parlante, see Andrea Vitali's essay "Theater of Brains",
http://www.associazioneletarot.it/page.aspx?id=163&lng=ENG. The Italian is in the Italian version of the essay. On that same page, on the side, are links to other essays quoting humorous works on the cards. "Tarot in Literature I", see the section on "Appropriated Verses". There are also many other humorous works in the second, third, and fourth of these series, and the one devoted to michiate, the Florentine version of the game (with 97 special cards). For Nottorno, see my comments to Pratesi's essay at
http://pratesitranslations.blogspot.com/2017/02/jan-5-2017-1501-1521-cards-from-perugia.htm, where I attempt a translation from Pratesi's transcription. For Piscina, see
http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/Francesco_Piscina_Discorso_1565. The Anonymous Discourse is in
Explaining the tarot: two Italian Renaissance Essays on the Meaning of the Tarot Pack, translated and edited by Ross Sinclair Caldwell, Thierry Depaulis, and Marco Ponzi (Maproom Publications, 2010). It is summarized by Pratesi at
http://www.naibi.net/A/02-ITATARO-Z.pdf, from 1987.
The question remains, was humor or satire, the ribaldry typical of Carnival, the original intent of the cards, at least in part? Does Moakley countenance other possibilities? I will save these questions for later posts, when we get to her actual arguments and evidence.
These days the Visconti-Sforza cards are often referred to as the "Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo", or "PMB" for short. They are distinguished from two other early Milanese decks by the same workshop, made during the regime of Duke Filippo Maria Visconti. One is sometimes called the "Visconti di Madrone", for its long-time owner; it is now, at least in the U.S., called the "Cary-Yale" (CY for short), for its two most recent owners. In it 11 triumphs (also called trumps, and more recently "major arcana") are known, and enough suit cards to say that there were 16 cards per suit, including female pages and knights as well as kings and queens.
The other deck is the "Brera-Brambilla" (sometimes BB), for the two current owners of those cards. Only two triumphs survive, but most of the suit cards, showing that there were the standard 14 cards per suit, numbers 1-10 and page, knight, queen, and king (see Bandera and Tanzi's catalog for the 2013 exhibition at the Brera, in my bibliography).
In Chapter One, she does present argument and evidence. So I will start there.
1. Dating the Visconti-Sforza cards. Moakley says:
With
the utmost skill and subtlety he has interwoven the Visconti motto "A
bon droyt" (said to have been suggested by Petrarch) on many of the
cards of the ordinary suits. On some of the trumps there are Sforza
devices. This combination of Visconti and Sforza elements shows that the
earliest possible date for the cards is 1432, when the betrothal of
Francesco Sforza and Bianca Maria Visconti united the two families.
However, we cannot date them as early as that since their painter,
Bembo, would have then been only twelve years old.(1).
In fact the only possibly Sforza device that I have been able to find in the cards is the fountain. It is generally thought today that if any deck was done to commemorate the wedding or betrothal of Bianca Maria Visconti and Francesco Sforza, it is the one currently at Yale University, the Cary-Yale. That one has Sforza devices in Staves and Batons, and on the male lover's chest in the Love card, while in Cups and Coins, and banners above the lovers' heads, are clearly recognizable Visconti devices.
She goes on (I cite only the parts that I think need updating):
If it is true that Count Sforza adopted the three-ring device, shown on
the Emperor and Empress cards, in 1450, the set was probably painted in
that very year.
However in the notes the earliest documented date is 1456, the date of a diploma for the founding of a hospital. There is otherwise a statement that Sforza adopted the three rings in 1450, referring to another work about which insufficient information is given.
The question of the three rings was discussed recently starting at
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1154&start=90#p18841,
linking to a previous discussion. Sforza would have
either acquired the device in 1441 from the city of Cremona, his wife's
dowry-city, or by virtue of his father's being given it from the Este in
1409, although that may have been only a single ring. In any case it
was before the PMB. In mathematics three interlocking rings are sometimes called "Borommeo Rings". It was Sforza who gave this device to the Borromeo, at the time of his accession to power in Milan.
Michael Dummett, in his 1986
The Visconti-Sforza Tarot Cards,
called the three rings "a distinctive Sforza device" (p. 11), but
without further explanation. What shows that the cards were not made
before 1450 in his view is not the rings by themselves, but their
appearing in combination with Visconti insignia, in a particular place:
The
three rings appear in conjunction with the ducal crown, with fronds of
laurel and palm (a Visconti device) on the garments of the Emperor and
Empress. Francesco would never have countenanced such an association
before he had made good his claim to the duchy; the pack, therefore,
cannot have been painted earlier than 1450.
In
favor of 1452 or 1451 for the original cards is the letter by Bianca
Maria Visconti to her husband, asking him to deal with Sigismondo
Malatesta's request of the previous autumn, for triumph cards of the
kind made in Cremona. Dummett in "Six 15th century tarot
cards: who painted them?" (
Artibus et Historiae
28:56, Feb. 2007, pp. 15-26), on p. 22, cites Winifred Terni de Gregory,
Bianca Maria Sforza, Duchess of Milan, 1940, p. 157, to the effect that Bianca Maria wrote her letter in 1451. On the other hand
http://trionfi.com/etx-sigismondo-pandolfo-malatesta cites 2 articles about it, one giving 1452 as the date for Bianca
Maria's request and the other a 1988 article giving a date of Nov. 1452
for Malatesta's request. The request suggests either that the
PMB or something similar was done for him, or it already existed.
"Phaeded" on Tarot History Forum (THF) has argued that the Venetian lion on the shield of the King of
Swords dates the cards to before Nov. 1452, after which Venice and
Sforza were at war (
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1062&p=16305&hilit=lion+Venice+Mark+1452#p16305). It seems to me that this would be a consideration if we knew for sure that these particular pieces of paper were actually the originals, which surely were possessed by the family. One problem is that at an early date the same Bembo workshop was making other decks, including perhaps copies of the original. Sigismondo Malatesta, as indicated above,requested a deck with all the ducal insignia, so probably like the PMB..He would not have minded the lion of Venice.
Also, given that Francesco himself historically worked for Venice, what is offensive or harmful about a card that reminds the viewer of that former service?
Bandera and Tanzi, in the 2013 Brera catalog, argue for c. 1455 for
around half the cards (not counting the 2s-10s; see point 4 below), on
stylistic grounds, comparing the Queen of Batons to recently uncovered
frescoes in Cremona churches dated c. 1455-1460 (see my post at
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1058&p=16209&hilit=Cicognara#p16209). Their point is not easy to see (meaning, I can't see the reemblance).
Dummett in 2007 defended 1462-3 for both the "original" and "added" cards. This is also not easy to accept, given the recent discovery, thanks to
Adrian on THF, who asked the Pierpont Morgan Library to measure the thickness of the cards, and, to the staff person's surprise, the "added cards" are less thick than
the "original". They are clearly from different stock, surely later, since paper-making technology would have improved in the meantime.
2. Who did the cards? There are two groups: "original artist" and "second artist" (Fortitude, Temperance, Star, Moon, Sun, World). Moakley says;
Six of the cards are by a different hand from Bembo's, and at one time
the whole set was thought to be the work of Antonio Cicognara.(4)
Actually,
there has been some question as to whether the "first artist" cards are
all Bonifacio, or if perhaps some other artist member of the workshop
might have had a hand in them, notably Ambrogio Bembo, for whom a
suspected individual style, very similar to Bonifacio's but more
"cursive", has been identified, both for the PMB and for some other
works formerly attributed only to Bonifacio, such as the "Lancelot" (see
Bandera in 2013, quoted at
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1058&p=16209&hilit=Cicognara#p16209).
Bandera hypothesized that Ambrogio "completed" the deck, I
assume meaning the 2s-10s, which display an abundance of curving plant
stems, etc. However that still would leave Bonifacio for all the ones of
interest to us.
When the 6 added cards were done is still under debate. Dummett ("Six 15th century tarot
cards: who painted them?",
Artibus et Historiae
28:56, Feb. 2007, pp. 15-26) thought that they were all done at the
same time, 1462-1463, by a division of labor between Bonifacio and
Benedetto, Benedetto doing the "second artist" cards. "Huck" on THF proposes 1465, for Ippolita Maria Sforza's wedding, by an unknown artist in Ferrara or Cremona. As
reported by Tanzi in the catalog to the 2013 exhibition in Milan, all
the art historians--including Bandera and he--think that they were done
by the Cremonese artist Antonio Cicognara, who has no known works before 1480 (see
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1058&p=16209&hilit=Cicognara#p16209). Tanzi does note Dummett's disagreement with that attribution.
There
is also the possibility, raised by Phaeded on THF, that the "added" cards were
from another deck, "added" only by a collector who had acquired both.
There are quite a few "PMB clones" from the late 15th and early 16th
centuries. The style is usually considered Ferrara-influenced.In this regard there are also reports, authentic or not, of decks made for Ansconio Maria Sforza, one of Francesco's sons, including one specifically from Cigognara in 1484, which we will read about in Moakley's next chapter. While it cannot be demonstrated that the PMB is that deck, the report itself is not as easily dismissed as Moakley would have it, as we will see.
It
remains an open question as to whether the 6 subjects of the "added
cards", as well as the Devil and the Tower, are "missing", i.e. were once there but lost or sold, as opposed to
never being there at all, in total or in part. I will address this question in more detail at the end.
For more works attributed to Bonifacio and his workshop, see Tanzi's 2012
book on the Bembo and Tanzi and Bandera's catalog (in my bibliography). I have discussed these in the thread at
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1058&hilit=Ambrogio.
3. Moakley's argument about how the cards were rarely used for play, due to their fragility and thickness is
another topic still being debated. That the cheap printed cards found in
wells, etc. in the Sforza Castle would have been those of the Sforza
family at the time of the PMB is not accepted by other researchers. None
is dated earlier than the late 1490s (a 2 of Coins has the
manufacturer's name, a documented Milanese producer, and the date 1499
printed on it, as shown in Kaplan vol. 2 p. 289); most are given to
sometime in the 16th century. However it is certain that less
expensively made cards were widely available in the 1450s, if only from
the data of the silk dealers in Florence, Milan's very staunch ally at
the time.
4. Galeazzo Maria Sforza's instructions
to Bonafacio Bembo for the now-lost frescoes at Pavia, as mentioned by
Moakley, is also of interest because it included card playing. See for
example Lubkin,
A Renaissance Court,
p. 309, that the fresco program specified "Elisabetta and damsels
playing cards and other games". Elisabetta was Galeazzo Maria's younger
sister.
5. I especially liked Moakley's tracing of how the cards got
to where they were in 1966. Her table of where the individual cards are
now is slightly out of date, in that the 13 number cards formerly
owned by the Colleoni family are now, according to the 2013 Brera
catalog, in a "private collection" in Bergamo.
6. Just to clarify: the
Ufiziolo is not a work
associated with the Bembo (nor does Moakley say it is). It is the
"Visconti Book of Hours", or perhaps "Psalter-Hours" begun by Gian
Galeazzo Visconti and finished by Filippo Maria Visconti (
https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/1120049), discussed at length in the thread, "Visconti Marriage and Betrothal Commemorations", which starts
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=917&p=13402&hilit=hours#p13402.
In general, this
was an impressive chapter, with much good information, mostly not out of
date, but some things are still being discussed.
