The Cary-Yale Visconti

Ross G Caldwell

Andy said:
To play the part of the devil's advocate, we should also remark that Filippo Maria Visconti barely tolerated his second wife Maria of Savoy (a well-known fact): it would have been strange if this whimsical duke had commemorated such an unhappy wedding with a deck of cards.

This refers to the long-held belief that the deck was painted in 1428 to commemorate that wedding. The only basis for that suggestion is the white cross on a red background, which is a symbol of Savoy. However, the near-universal acceptance of Bembo as the painter makes this date impossible, since Bembo could not have been born much earlier than 1420.

Secondly, the white cross on a red field is also the shield of Pavia, and the junior Visconti was always Count of Pavia.

Giuliani Algeri proposed in 1981 (or thereabouts) that the trumps were added to the deck at the marriage of Galeazzo Maria Sforza and Bona of Savoy in 1468. Thus she sees a couple of decades between the manufacture of the two parts of the deck. I'm not sure if she still holds this view (or the view that one of the Zavattari artists made the deck, not Bembo. I don't think the Lancelot of the Lake had been positively identified for Bembo yet then - see Kaplan II, pp. 120-137 for illustrations from this).

Furthermore, the painter who is presently credited as the author of these tarots, in 1428 was still too young to be active (refering here to Bembo), and it would have been even more unlikely for Filippo Maria to have this tarot made for the 10th or 15th anniversary of his wedding.

There is no reason to believe it was made for a wedding at all. This is a persistent myth. Even now you hear 1441 touted as the date for the deck - for Bianca Maria's wedding to Francesco Sforza. All of this really is mere conjecture.

I'll add another one - it was commissioned by Maria of Savoy around 1445. The notion that Filippo Maria "barely tolerated" Maria is also baseless; they lived essentially separate lives, since Filippo was a recluse and Maria the public face of the dynasty, but there is *no direct evidence whatsoever* (only hostile hearsay) that Filippo Maria disliked her.

The reason I say 1445 is because Maria of Savoy had extensive dealings with the Borromeo family (financial and various civic projects), and there is a famous fresco in the Palazzo Borromeo that shows well-to-do people playing what could be taken as triumph cards.

Most elements seem to suggest that the so-called Cary-Yale Visconti tarot was painted while the Sforza family had already seized the duchy of Milan, but at the same time it celebrates only the name and devices of the previous duke, Filippo Maria.
In order to explain this apparently controversial situation, we may think that during his reign, Francesco Sforza may have dedicated a tribute to his predecessor and father-in-law by having two (or maybe more) commemorative tarots painted with Filippo Maria's name and family devices, which were also adopted by the Sforza. In these decks, the recently stricken ducato coin might have been chosen as a source of inspiration for the pips in the suit of Coins, in honour of Francesco Sforza who had issued it.
Seen from the opposite end, the gold coin may have been fictional by the time the tarot was painted, and later on Francesco Sforza, inspired by the knight pattern, may have decided to strike a real one, with a different motto.
But since over six centuries have elapsed, these are (and will probably remain) only conjectures."
end quote from:
http://it.geocities.com/a_pollett/cards31.htm

This is conjecture of course. But while Bianca Maria held her late father in high regard, I doubt Francesco Sforza would have gone to that much trouble. Francesco's son Galeazzo Maria is a much better candidate for commissioning "commemorative" cards, if such is the case, since he really did revel in his Visconti ancestry. Among other things, he paid a lot of attention to Filippo Maria's tomb, as we know from letters in 1475.

To play devil's advocate, if it is feasible that the gold ducat on the Visconti-Modrone was commemorative, in memory of Filippo Maria, it may just as easily have been made as such under Francis I as under Sforza, Francis I's own parents were a Visconti desscendant and Loise of Savoy [and it is feasable as any other explanation, that it is this marriage commemorated on the lovers card as any other], and perhaps in commemorating Filippo also is done so in memory of a previous Union of Visconti-Savoy.

Click to expand...

But how feasible are all these conjectures, do you think? Now that you know that the ducato really existed?

Art historians are unanimous that it is mid-15th century. More importantly, is there any proof for any of the conjecture - such as a commemorative coin in Filippo Maria's name issued? Isn't it better to accept the simpler, reasonable explanation, that the cards were painted while Filippo Maria was still alive?

Why create all of this labyrinthine speculation?

Ross

kwaw

Ross G Caldwell said:
This is not true, and Andy should update his site. Carlo Crippa published Filippo Maria's gold ducat in his comprehensive study of Milanese coinage. See my page here -
http://www.angelfire.com/space/tarot/ducato.html

The inscription on the horse-side reads - FILIPVS MARIA ANGLVS
The shield-side has FI MA (=Filippo Maria), and around the coin DVX MED IOLA NUM (Dux Mediolanum, Duke of Milan).

While the exact year is impossible to determine, Crippa says (IIRC) that it was struck until 1447.

Great stuff Ross, thanks. That's what I am interested in Ross, refutation from which we [or at I at any rate] may learn something rather than simple dismissal. The basis of Betts re-examination of the dating arose from his believe that the death on a horse with scythe did not first occur until c.1480 in German bibles and did not become a popular convention until the early 16th century. Although it does appear it was rare le pendu was able to track down an earlier depiction of death on horseback with scythe, so refuting that its first appearance was c.1480, see posts here:

http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=916395&postcount=2
http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=916763&postcount=3

start of thread [which isn't soley concerned with Betts, but with the subject of scythes in relation to some decks and cut sheets and the dating implications, or otherwise, of such]:

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=68260&page=1&pp=10

Kwaw

Ross G Caldwell

kwaw said:
Great stuff Ross, thanks. That's what I am interested in Ross, refutation from which we [or at I at any rate] may learn something rather than simple dismissal.

I hope never to dismiss anything without an explanation why. It's easy to be lazy if you know better, but I think people are hungry for these sorts of painstaking details, just as I am.

If you look in the archives of LTarot (search crippa and ducato) go to the postings of 2003 from Ray Luberti (guildhallsun) where you will find his postings about Crippa.)

I don't have Crippa's book, only this reference (it's three volumes, hundreds of dollars). Carlo Crippa is probably the foremost expert on Milanese numismatics -
http://www.crippanumismatica.it/numismatica.htm

The basis of Betts re-examination of the dating arose from his believe that the death on a horse with scythe did not first occur until c.1480 in German bibles and did not become a popular convention until the early 16th century. Although it does appear it was rare le pendu was able to track down an earlier depiction of death on horseback with scythe, so refuting that its first appearance was c.1480, see posts here:

http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=916395&postcount=2
http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=916763&postcount=3

start of thread [which isn't soley concerned with Betts, but with the subject of scythes in relation to some decks and cut sheets and the dating implications, or otherwise, of such]:

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=68260&page=1&pp=10

It always pays to keep asking questions. Soon you get to the point where nobody has the answer

Ross

Ross G Caldwell

kwaw said:
The basis of Betts re-examination of the dating arose from his believe that the death on a horse with scythe did not first occur until c.1480 in German bibles and did not become a popular convention until the early 16th century. Although it does appear it was rare le pendu was able to track down an earlier depiction of death on horseback with scythe, so refuting that its first appearance was c.1480, see posts here:

http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=916395&postcount=2
http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=916763&postcount=3

start of thread [which isn't soley concerned with Betts, but with the subject of scythes in relation to some decks and cut sheets and the dating implications, or otherwise, of such]:

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=68260&page=1&pp=10

The internet is a much better resource now than it was when Betts was researching his book. There are a lot of surprises and real research can be begun on it. But it is best for getting a bibliography - probably the best bibliographic resource ever created. Then you have to go to the library, and/or write to the current experts in the field.

It is easy sometimes with old-fashioned research or internet research to think you have pretty much exhausted the knowledge on a subject, and then to jump to a conclusion (which seems reasonable given your "mastery" of the topic, i.e. the time of appearance of the image of death with scythe on horseback). I used to do it a lot more than I do now; I am humbled by my own ignorance, and sometimes the very obscurity of a topic itself, even to experts in the field; so we are all spurred on to find the answers, if they exist. It is only then, when the combination of expertise and brute research is exhausted, that a speculative conclusion is necessary or justified.

There is no shame in it, since it is inevitable and everyone no matter how much they know will be seen to have made speculative errors when new facts are uncovered. The only embarrassment comes when the facts were already known and were available with a little more work.

I am sure Betts gives a lot of valuable insights, but I don't think his redating of the Cary-Yale is one of them.

kwaw

Originally posted by Ross G Caldwell

I'll add another one - it was commissioned by Maria of Savoy around 1445. The notion that Filippo Maria "barely tolerated" Maria is also baseless; they lived essentially separate lives, since Filippo was a recluse and Maria the public face of the dynasty, but there is *no direct evidence whatsoever* (only hostile hearsay) that Filippo Maria disliked her.

The reason I say 1445 is because Maria of Savoy had extensive dealings with the Borromeo family (financial and various civic projects), and there is a famous fresco in the Palazzo Borromeo that shows well-to-do people playing what could be taken as triumph cards.

It is also in 1445, May 26th, that Vitaliano Borromeo was invested as an Earl by Filippo Maria.

In that case would you say the Lover card heraldry most likely does represent the the Houses of Savoy and Visconti; as opposed to say Sforza's title of Duke of Milan and Prince of Pavia, which would date them post c.1450? But thereagain could such considerations also apply to Fillippo Maria, as Duke of Milan and Earl of Pavia?

Would this mean the fountain devise on the male figure of the Love card and on several court cards was not then probably meant to represent a personal device of Sforza? As far as I can make out the identification of the fountain as a particular personal device of Sforza alone is speculative, and could have been a Visconti devise he took over? If so, could the 'later' cards as being identified with Sforza through emblems such as the fountain and borromean rings perhaps apply, not as Visconti-Sforza, but Visconti-Borromeo?

Re: the Borromeo family: In terms of there being 16 suit cards, 4x16=64; a significant number in relation to the boromean rings, symbol of the city of cremona that became part of the duchy of Milan under Visconti in 1422 - their being 64 ways in which the boromean rings can be interlaced [2 to the power of six]. Cremona was part of Bianca Maria's dowry [though prior to the marriage Sforza won Cremona for himself in 1440]. But also of course they were devices of the Borromeo family [gifted by Sforza for their loyalty post 1450]. But while these appear in the Lombardy I and in the Pierpont-Morgan - they do not appear in the Cary Yale or other V-S decks so no relation probably with the 4x16 cards of the minor deck [and anyway there are 5x16 cards or more, unless the trumps were a later addition]. Sorry, just prattling out loud

Kwaw

kwaw

kwaw said:
It is also in 1445, May 26th, that Vitaliano Borromeo was invested as an Earl by Filippo Maria.

In that case would you say the Lover card heraldry most likely does represent the the Houses of Savoy and Visconti; as opposed to say Sforza's title of Duke of Milan and Prince of Pavia, which would date them post c.1450? But thereagain could such considerations also apply to Fillippo Maria, as Duke of Milan and Earl of Pavia?

Kwaw

Would this mean the fountain devise on the male figure of the Love card and on several court cards was not then probably meant to represent a personal device of Sforza? As far as I can make out the identification of the fountain as a particular personal device of Sforza alone is speculative, and could have been a Visconti devise he took over? If so, could even the 'later' cards as being identified with Sforza through emblems such as the fountain and borromean rings perhaps apply, not as Visconti-Sforza, but Visconti-Borromeo?

Re: the extra virtues in the Cary-Yale, inspired o related perhaps by Filippo's title as 'count of Virtue'? [Actually his fathers title, but though Vertus was inherited by Valentina, Filippo also continued to use the cardinal virtues as personal emblems].

Kwaw

Ross G Caldwell

Hi Kwaw, these are good questions. Let me reply with what I know quickly, without references, since I don't have a lot of time right now. I'll fill it in and correct it later.

kwaw said:
Would this mean the fountain devise on the male figure of the Love card and on several court cards was not then probably meant to represent a personal device of Sforza? As far as I can make out the identification of the fountain as a particular personal device of Sforza alone is speculative, and could have been a Visconti devise he took over? If so, could even the 'later' cards as being identified with Sforza through emblems such as the fountain and borromean rings perhaps apply, not as Visconti-Sforza, but Visconti-Borromeo?

Kwaw

For the fountain - as far as I know, Giuliana Algeri, an art historian/medievalist with a longstanding interest in these cards, proposed in 1981 that the trumps of the Cary-Yale were made for Galeazzo Maria Sforza after his marriage with Bona of Savoy, in 1468. She clearly accepted that the Lovers card represents a real marriage, which is the same reason that people once speculated the cards were made in 1428 for FMV and Mary of Savoy. She also noted the fountain on the man's cape as a Sforza device. She seems to have accepted implicitly the "marriage" hypothesis., i.e. the deck commemorated a wedding. Finally, she proposed that the artists were in the Zavattari workshop, and not Bembo.

As late as 1999, Sandrina Bandera cited these as Algeri's opinions, which seems to indicate that Algeri hasn't changed her opinion. I don't know of anything she has subsequently written on the topic.

The Lancelot of the Lake drawings hadn't yet been compared to Bembo when Algeri wrote, I think, and the consensus is now universal that the same artist did both the Cary-Yale cards (all of them) and the manuscript, and I think it also universal that it is Bonifacio Bembo.

Besides the implicit and unproven assumption that it is a wedding deck, Algeri also seems to have been wrong on the artist.

Dummett I think believes that the deck was made in 1441, for the marriage of F. Sforza and Bianca Maria Visconti, disregarding the Savoyan possibility of the White Cross but accepting the identification with a marriage, the Sforza emblem, and probably thinking of the portrait of this wedding (illustrated on the web somewhere and in Kaplan) which has striking similarities (as well as even more striking differences I would say).

Both Dummett and Algeri seem to disregard the possibility that the white cross device means "Count of Pavia", and does not refer to Savoy at all.

The Fountain really seems like a Sforza device. But I remember somebody showing that it wasn't necessarily.

I don't know others who have commented on the deck at length, so that about sums it up.

The date is speculative, but the bedrock is FMV's coins. His coins date the cards to before 1447, which is why Algeri had to speculate that the trumps were added later. In that case, if you find that idea plausible, then it could be Francesco Sforza or Galeazzo Maria Sforza, or even later, depending on how you understand the white cross (Count of Pavia or Savoy heraldry).

I tend to think that the deck was made all at once, and before 1447. If the fountain device is Sforza, then it could be argued that the deck is a gift from Mary of Savoy to Bianca Maria - they seem to have carried on a cordial relationship, befitting their positions (as did Galeazzo Maria following his mother).

kwaw

Ross G Caldwell said:
Finally, she proposed that the artists were in the Zavattari workshop, and not Bembo.

As late as 1999, Sandrina Bandera cited these as Algeri's opinions, which seems to indicate that Algeri hasn't changed her opinion. I don't know of anything she has subsequently written on the topic.

The Lancelot of the Lake drawings hadn't yet been compared to Bembo when Algeri wrote, I think, and the consensus is now universal that the same artist did both the Cary-Yale cards (all of them) and the manuscript, and I think it also universal that it is Bonifacio Bembo.

Besides the implicit and unproven assumption that it is a wedding deck, Algeri also seems to have been wrong on the artist.

While the weight of expert opinion makes it more probable that the artist was Bembo, as far as I am aware it remains nonetheless 'opinion' not fact, it has not been proven; and on this basis I don't think one can be so bold as to state that Algeri was wrong, merely that her opinion [at that time at least] was/is at variance with that of the majority of art experts who have considered the matter. There is enough similarity I think, to suggest that the same artist who created the Lancelot was probably the same artist who created the the Cary Yale; however, the artist of the Lancelot too is unknown, but is in the 'opinion' of some art experts possibly by Bembo [who according to available documentation worked for Sforza from at least the 1550's].

Kwaw

Ross G Caldwell

kwaw said:
While the weight of expert opinion makes it more probable that the artist was Bembo, as far as I am aware it remains nonetheless 'opinion' not fact, it has not been proven; and on this basis I don't think one can be so bold as to state that Algeri was wrong, merely that her opinion [at that time at least] was/is at variance with that of the majority of art experts who have considered the matter.

That's true, which is why I said she SEEMS to have been wrong, not that she WAS wrong.

kwaw

Ross G Caldwell said:
This refers to the long-held belief that the deck was painted in 1428 to commemorate that wedding. The only basis for that suggestion is the white cross on a red background, which is a symbol of Savoy. However, the near-universal acceptance of Bembo as the painter makes this date impossible, since Bembo could not have been born much earlier than 1420.

Ross

Well, the white cross on red field is as substantial a basis for conjecture as any other, and delimiting the dates after all is merely based upon the assumption that opinions about the artist are correct. In the context of the card 'Love' the representation of the two houses of Savoy and Visconti being joined makes a lot of sense. Even if hearsay is correct and the marriage was loveless, and unconsummated according to rumour, in the context of the time I think that such an objection is irrelevant, marriages were arranged for a host of social, political and economic reasons, for example to protect inheritance, establish claims, form alliances; the political and propaganda value of the 'love' card was in the bonding of the houses of Savoy and Milan, not the love or otherwise between Maria or Filippo.
Perhaps the allusion was intended to be 'loaded' with several references, Filippo was both Duke of Milan and Earl of Pavia – so the flag is double loaded in referencing the joining of the house of Savoy with Visconti Duke of Milan and Earl of Pavia. Hoever, even if the card as I think likely does make reference to the couple Maria of Savoy and Filippo Visconti,[though there remains the issue of the fountain to explain] that does not neccessarily mean that it was commissioned for the occassion of their wedding [and so does not preclude the possibility of Bembo being the artist].

It may have well been Filippo or Maria who commissioned the cards, but as you say it is mere assumption that it was done so for either their own or anothers occasion of wedding. It could also have been the gift of an ally in gratitude for some favour, such as for example a member of the Borommeo family, with their apparent interest in cards, with their good relationship with both Filippo and Maria, who received many favours from them, for example the Earlship in 1445 mentioned in previous post, also gifts of lands, property and feuds, as for example:

Quote:
"Filippo Maria Angelo, Duke of Milan, Earl of Pavia and Angera, as a special favour granted by our Lordship, being our will the satisfaction of wise Vitaliano, we assign, and we bid that, in future times, is assigned to Borromei...." this is the beginning of the deed dated September 14th, 1439, by means of which Visconti gives Vitaliano Borromeo the feud including Arona lands and castle in its entirety, as a reward for his remarkable support, and maybe also for financial funding, which the Borromeo family was now able to provide to Princes and State holders.
End quote

The visconti serpent devouring a child is also the coat of arms for Angera, so the two could reference Earl of Pavia and Angera. The Rocca di Angera
originally owned by the Visconti family was purchased by Vitaliano Borromeo, treasurer of the Ducato, in 1449 from the Ambrosian Republic.

Kwaw