On April 14 I wrote, about Lazarelli's illumination of Apollo,

I did find one minor discrepancy between the image and O"Neal's translation: Lazarelli says that Apollo holds a "laurel wreath" in his hand, while the image shows him with a laurel staff. This might be a translation problem; I will check the Latin.)

I did check the Latin for the sentence with "laurel wreath" in it.

71f. Not the laurel but the royal crown binds your hair, and the odorous laurel wreath fills your holy hand.
71f. Laurea non stringit, sed regia nexa capillos.
Et complet sanctam laurus odora manum...

I don't know Latin, but I can associate every word in the Latin with a word in the translation: literally, "And fills holy laurel odorous hand." There is nothing left over that could mean "wreath." For the third time in this Book Two of the poem, the discrepancy between poem and illumination (which also has no wreath) goes away once we look at the Latin. I suspect that when Lazarelli was writing Book Two, he already had seen the illuminations to Book One, and realized that the illuminator wasn't going to make any major changes to the images Lazarelli had given to him, the ones he bought in Venice. Lazarelli would have to be satisfied with just the addition of the four creatures to the Primo Causa.

Now I'm ready to address the issue of whether the designer of the S-series knew the Lazarelli manuscript. Ross wrote,

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

Levenson observes that one difference between the E- and S-series is that the designer of the E-series knew the Libellus, and the designer of the S-series did not.

Here is Levenson on the E and S Venuses (p. 145):

This image furnishes additional proof that the E-series is the original set. The S-series print replaces the doves, which are specified in the text, with a veritable menagerie of different types of birds .

On Mars (p. 149):

The animal in the E-series print is clearly characterized as a wolf by its bushy tail and chunky proportions; the S-series engraver, however, misunderstood the image and depicted a dog instead.

And on Saturn (p. 153):

It is interesting to note that the S-series copyist omits the handle which the E-series master had indicated on the shaft of the scythe and does not emphasize the length of the figure's beard. He evidently was not himself acquainted with the Libellus description.

What the Libellus says on this point is

445. He was depicted as old man, gray-haired, with a long beard, stooped, melancholy, and pallid, his head covered...
445 Natus in hoc parua spargit lanugine mentum
Paruaque dum graditur lumina figit humi.

The relevant difference here is in the beard, not the scythe.

Now we have to ask, if the S-series designer didn't read the Libellus, did he read Lazarelli'? Here we need to look at Lazarelli's poem and its illuminations, and compare them to the S-series.

For Venus, Lazarelli specifies doves:

703 Among the birds they gave to her the snow-white dove which tends to her chicks during any phase of the moon.
703. Inter aues illi niueam dedit esse columbam.

The S-series, of course, has the "menagerie," as Levenson' calls that collection of diverse birds

For Mars, the change from wolf to dog goes totally against Lazarelli, who clearly specifies a wolf:

531. The wolf stands fixed and never leaves the traces of its master, and the greedy animal always desires to live on plunder.
531. Stat lupus et numquam domini uestigia linquit.
Atque rapax praeda uiuere semper auet.

It is hard to tell what the animal is in Kaplan's small black and white reproduction of Lazarelli's illumination; but the rest of the image, incuding the placement of the animal, fits the E series image, so probably the illumination does, too.



On Saturn, Lazarelli specifies just the merest sign of a beard.

...445. By nature, meanwhile, he starts to cover his chin with signs of a beard and while he walks he fixes his small eyes on the ground...
445. Natus in hoc parua spargit lanugine mentum
Paruaque dum graditur lumina figit humi...

I assume that the translation is accurate.

The S-series doesn't exactly comply with this description, but it does shorten the beard in comparison to the E-series. S follows Lazarelli's wishes, but only a little: it is still not more meager than Jupiter's. By the same token, the S-series has Jupiter with a fuller beard, but still not fuller than Saturn's, as Lazarelli would have wished:

510. His hair is long and his full beard is becoming...
510. Caesaries longa est barbaque plena decet...

A couple of other cards are worth looking at.When we look at Luna, we see that the S-series design follows neither Lazarelli's poem, which specifies that one of the horses be partly black, nor his illumination, which makes one of the horses black and the other white.



And finally we have the Primo Causa. Lazarelli described the "four evangelists" on the outside, and for a second time (after Luna) the illuminator complied with his idea. Moreover, the S-series broke with his E-series predecessor and did the same, giving us the same four creatures in the same four corners (from Huck's post).



Since the Primo Causa was God, and God was Christ, it was a small jump to add these creatures; it was common practice to put them in the corners of mandorlas was a common practice, for example that below.



But the configuration was almost always different: typically the angel and the eagle were on top, and the lion and the bull on the bottom (sometimes switching sides). It is the same on the earliest tarot World card of this design that I know, the "Sforza Castle," as well as all subsequent ones.

Presumably it was felt that lions and bulls, being heavier than angels and eagles, and less frequently found with wings, should be on the bottom. To my knowledge, only the Lazarelli illumination and the S-series "Mantegna," have eagle and lion on top and the angel and bull on the bottom.

But there was another tradition which may have been more fashionable at this particular place and time (whenever that was), penetrating even the territory of the sacred mandorlas. That tradition was that of the four winds, the four temperaments, and the four elements. In his engraving "Philosophia" (http://www.fourhares.com/images/philosophia.jpg), Duerer put air and fire on top and earth and water on the bottom.



That makes sense: air and fire are lighter than earth and water. But Durer also identified the four apostles with the four elements and the four temperaments. In "Four apostles," 1520's, John is on the far left, and Mark on the middle right. (The other two are Peter, middle left, and Paul, far right.)



Duerer identified John with air and the sanguine temperament; hence his red complexion and youthful appearance. John was traditionally identified with the eagle. Mark was identified with the lion, ergo fire, and that is how he is in "Four Apostles So it could be that John, as air, could be put at the top of the Primo Causa iillumination, and also Mark, as fire. presumably on Lazarelli's instruction. And the S-series either followed Lazarelli's instruction as well, or for some other reason independently drew on the same tradition as Lazarelli did, either independently of Lazarelli or before him. All this is speculation, however. The correspondences remain puzzling.

My conclusion is that in view of the discrepancies between the poem and the S-series images of Venus, Luna, and Mars, the S-series designer probably did not have access to the Lazarelli poem. However he might have heard of Lazarelli's complaint about Jupiter's and Saturn's beards being too meager and too full, and tried to adjust the images accordingly, without understanding what Lazarelli was getting at. He also might have heard about Lazarelli's complaint about the lack of animals in Primo Causa and adjusted the image there, too. Why they have the same configuraton in Lazarelli and the S-series remains unexplained. Perhaps someone knows some other explanation, besides supposing either that the "four elements" interpretation of the creatures was in fashion, and adopted either by the S- series designer, or else the S-series designer had some instruction deriving ultimately either from Lazarelli or from someone who had seen the Primo Causa illumination in his manuscript.

Mike,

the following is a short abstract of some contents of the echecs amoureux in the Evrart de Conty interpretation - not made very good, but relevant to the content of the Mantegna Tarocchi.

http://mw.mcmaster.ca/scriptorium/deconty1.html

It starts very promising ...

"How the nine muses represent the main nine sciences.", but then it forgets to tell anything about Muses. But it tells something about the spheres.

"These nine sciences are grammar, logic, rhetoric, astronomy, geometry, arithmetic, and music; the eighth one is philosophy and the ninth is metaphysics which surpasses and rules all the others, according to The Philosopher [Aristotle]. Among these nine sciences, seven are the liberal arts which correspond to the seven planets. "

Then it connects ..

Saturn to Grammatica
Jupiter to Logic
Mars to Rhetoric
Sun (Apollo) to Arithmetic
Venus to Geometry
then it talks of astronomy and it seems, that the author (or his representation) loses the story.

... luckily I once had the text and copied the content.

The content alone are various pages, maybe 20. So I reduce it to the structure:

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

Prologue
1. Le poeme des "Echecs amoureux"
2. Richesse metaphorique du jeu d'echecs - 4 subpoints
3. Origine de du jeu
(I'm not sure, if this is from Evrart de Conty)

Premiere Partie: Fortune et Nature
1. La deesse Fortune - with 8 subpoints
2. La deesse Nature - with more than 30 subpoints
Point 2.7.1.2 speaks of "Le ciel et les etoiles" and then it speaks of 9 spheres
Till here the text has 24 Folio.

Deuxieme Partie: Les Dieux et les deesses
Preambule
1. Saturn - 6 subpoints, ca. 4 Folio
2. Jupiter - 7 subpoints, 2 Folio
3. Mars - 2 subpoints, 1 Folio
4. Apollon et les Muses - 14 subpoints, from these 6 for the Muses, totally 6 Folio
In this part it seems, that 9 Muses, 9 sciences and 9 "spheres celestes" are connected.

Then the presentation has reached Folio page 39 and it stops the representation of the gods till Folio 93 (!!! 54 Folios later) and this free place is filled with

"Introduction aux arts liberaux et aux sciences"

whereby the first 5 liberal arts only take 2 1/2 Folio.

VI Astronomy takes 10 Folio - with 10 subpoints
VII Musique takes 30 Folio - with more than 30 subpoints
VIII La Philosophie naturelle takes 8 Folio - with 11 subpoints
IX La Metaphysique takes 1/2 Folio
X La Theologie takes 1 Folio

Then we've finished the intermezzo and the presentation of the gods proceeds

5. Venus - ca. 7 Folio, about 16 subpoints
6. Mercury - 3 Folio, 9 subpoints
7. La lune, ou Diane - 1 Folio, 4 subpoints
8. Pallas - 5 Folio, 13 subpoints
9. Junon - 4 Folio, 5 subpoints
10. Neptune - 4 Folio, ca. 25 subpoints
11. Pluton, 8 Folio, ca. 25 subpoints
12. Cybele, 1 Folio, 7 subpoints
13. Vulcain 2 Folio, 10 subpoints
14. Bacchus 2 Folio, 10 subpoints
15. Esculap, 3 Folio, 6 subpoints
16. Pan, 1/2 Folio, 3 subpoints

Here Folio

Troisieme Partie: Le Jugement de Paris ... 8 Folio, more than 20 subpoints
1. La fable
2. Les Paroles de Venus a l'Acteur du livre rime

Quatrieme Partie: La Rencontre with Diane ... 22 Folio, about 60 subpoints
1. Les noms et les significations de Diane
2. La foret
3. Diane
4. Les Paroles de Diane a l'Acteur du livre rime
5. La response de l'acteur

Cinquieme Partie: Le Verger de Deduit .. 60 Folio, more than 110 subpoints

Sixieme Partie: LL'Exichiquier Et La Partie d'echecs ..130 Folio (????), ca. 200 subpoints
(this explains the figures of the male acteur and the figures of his female counterpart.

whereby the subpoint 4.4 called "L'impatience du dieu d'amour" starts at Folio 278 and the next point 4.5 is started with Folio 350, as if this point takes unbelievable 72 Folio ... perhaps pictures? perhaps missing? perhaps a joke? ...

Last page number is Folio 352.

***********

... returning back to the problem, it seems, that indeed the missing 9 Muses have been discussed before, but if they're individually noted and interpreted according the sciences, I don't know. So it seems, that in the arrangement:

Saturn to Grammatica
Jupiter to Logic
Mars to Rhetoric
Sun (Apollo) to Arithmetic ... Mantegna Tarocchi has Geometry
Venus to Geometry ... Mantegna Tarocchi has Arithmetic
...
Mercury should be Astronomy ... Mantegna Tarocchi has Music
Moon should be music ... Mantegna Tarocchi has Poetry
Athena (?) presents natural Philosophy ... also in Mantegna Tarocchi
Metaphysic ... Mantegna Tarocchi has Astrology
Theology ... also in Mantegna Tarocchi

So the whole have some considerable variants in the construction, but also strong similarity. Not 9, but 10 is the organizing number.

Yes, these are nice parallels, Huck. I haven't replied before now because I didn't have much to say. But now I do. I have finally read O'Neal's comments to his translation. They are fairly thought-provoking. I would post scans of the pages, but I'm not sure about copyright restrictions. He has a 6 page introduction, 1 page of endnotes, a 2 page bibliography, and a 1 page index. There are no notes in the pages of the text itself, either the Latin or the translation. What I will do here is summarize and occasionally quote what I think is interesting, all from his introduction.

There are 5 manuscripts containing all or part of the De Imaginibus.

1. Vatican codex Urb. Lat. 716."Fifteenth century, parchment, mm. 203 x 130, ff. 59." This one appears to have been written first. Every time the name "Frederico" appears, it is written over an erasure. Moreover, it contains a part at the end not in 717, showing concern about "Frederico's" illness and happy that he appears to be getting better. This part, O'Neal says, appears to have been written originally for Borso; When Borso died, the section was removed. After the dedication and an introduction there follow 27 descriptive passages. "A colorful drawing follows each of the descriptive passages," O'Neal says. Does O'Neal mean to imply that the drawings are in color? 23 of them, of course, correspond to engravings in the "Mantegna."

2. Vatican codex Urb Lat. 717. "Fifteenth century, parchment, mm. 212 x137, ff. 58." This is written in a different but similar hand to 716. O'Neal gives many examples of differences in script to support this conclusion. 717 is easier to read and has fewer abbreviations. There are no erasures under the name "Frederico." In the dedication, Frederico is called "spes unucus," only hope. In 716, the phrase was "spes maximus," greatest hope. Borso was Lazarelli's greatest hope, and Frederico (now that Borso is dead) his only one. in 717, of course, the section at the end about the dedicatee's illness is omitted. There are ten other word changes in the text, all of which are minor but fit the context better, O'Neal says.

There are other differences between the two manuscripts, mostly observations by Donati but apparently confirmed by O'Neal. O'Neal comments,

In addition, the figure of Prima Causa in 716 doesn't have the symbols of the evangelists, the two verses dealing with these symbols did not exist in the text but were added in the margin. Urbs. Lat. 717 contains the symbols of the evengelists, and the two verses are in the text. Finally, the seal on the dedicatory page remains white since what was there has been scratched off; however, 717 contains the seal of the Duke of Urbino.

717 also has a black eagle with wings extended in the lower margin of the first folia, O'Neal observes.

O'Neal decides that the manuscript that Frederico received was 717, not 716. He says:

Lazarelli evidently recycled the poem and sought the patronage of the Duke of Urbino,

But then why were both versions in Urbino? O'Neal says:

The existence of these two manuscripts to the Library of Urbino is easily explained. In the Liubrary of Urbino, according to the notes of the Index Vecchio, thefts and exchanges were not rare. The manuscript 717 was either stolen or loaned and then returned in 1523. [Citation: Lamberto Donati, "Le fonti iconografiche di alcuni manuscitti urbinati della Biblioteca Vaticana," La Bibliofilia, 60-61 (1958) 90.] During the absence of 717, (possibly it was in Florence), the librarian obtained 716, had it changed, and added it to the library.

I find the bit about the evangelists quite interesting, that 716 did not mention the evangelists. Lazarelli evidently added it in the time between the completion of 716, i.e. just before Borso's 1471 death, and whenever he submitted 717 to Frederico. O'Neal does not comment on why he would have done that, so I will. Either he got the idea on his own, or he saw the S-series and decided to follow its example. That raises the question, what other differences are there between 716's illustrations and 717's. O'Neal wasn't looking closely at the drawings, or he would have noticed the discrepancies that I pointed out between them and the text. The drawings we have seen reproductions of obviously follow the E-series. But we probably have only seen the drawings from one manuscript, probably 716. Kaplan does not say which of them his reproductions come from. Trionfi seems to have used a different source. Perhaps it says. There are fewer discrepancies between the poem and the S-series.

It seems to me most likely that Lazarelli used the E-series for 716. But before 717 was back from the scribe, the S-series came out, so he had his illustrator add the evangelists to the illustration, as in the S-series. Whether there are other changes to the illustrations remains to be seen.

I will move on. O'Neal, at the end of my last quote, suggests that 717 spent some time in Florence, in between stays in Urbino. Why Florence? Well, that brings us to the third copy of Lazarelli's poem.

3. Florence, Biblioteca Nationale, Ms. Nuovi Acquisiti 272, fifteenth century, paper, ff. 54. The Codex contains the De Imaginibus of Lazzarelli without the illustrations ff. 1-38. There are blank pages and at the end are notes on the author by a modern hand. This manuscript is a copy of the poem as it is contained in Urbs. Lat. 717.

Perhaps interest in the "Mantegna" stimulated an interest in the Lazarelli. Or vice versa, once the manuscript arrived? I of course think the former.

For the fourth and fifth. I quote O'Neal:

4. San Serino Marche, Biblioteca Comunale 135. No other shelf mark. Fifteenth century, paper, 20 folia unnumbered. A series of poems on the pagan gods, each followed by a drawing. It begins with a drawing of Venus. Then follow poems and drawings of Mercurius, Luna, Musica, Poesis, Apollo, Clio, Euterpe, Melpomone, Thalia, Polimia, Eratho (i.e. Tersicore, without drawings). This is a fragment of Lazzareli's De Imaginibus.

5. San Severino Marche, Biblioteca Comunale 207. Fifteenth Century, several fascicles. Fascicle 2, pt. 1. 8 unnumbered folia. Another fragment of the poem De Imaginibusis in Cod. 135 with alternating poems and drawings. This begins with a fragment of a poem followed by a drawing of Jupiter. There follows poems and drawings of Mars and Sol, and a poem of Venus.

It would of course be of interest to see both texts and illustrations here, for subtle changes.

Hi MikeH,

... good work.
It looks natural to see 716 as earlier, the difference was expected.

I knew about 3 editions. Montefeltro worked with Bisticci and Bisticci had been in Florence. This might explain a little bit, how the manuscripts developed.

mikeh wrote: There are 5 manuscripts containing all or part of the De Imaginibus.
..
Does O'Neal mean to imply that the drawings are in color?

???? .... of course they are in color ... they're illuminations, not engravings ... .-) that was, what I was talking about a long time ...
I thought, that you knew this.

2. Vatican codex Urb Lat. 717.
...
There are other differences between the two manuscripts, mostly observations by Donati but apparently confirmed by O'Neal. O'Neal comments: In addition, the figure of Prima Causa in 716 doesn't have the symbols of the evangelists, the two verses dealing with these symbols did not exist in the text but were added in the margin. Urbs. Lat. 717 contains the symbols of the evengelists, and the two verses are in the text. Finally, the seal on the dedicatory page remains white since what was there has been scratched off; however, 717 contains the seal of the Duke of Urbino.
717 also has a black eagle with wings extended in the lower margin of the first folia, O'Neal observes.

O'Neal decides that the manuscript that Frederico received was 717, not 716. He says: Lazarelli evidently recycled the poem and sought the patronage of the Duke of Urbino ...

I could imagine, that Federico got one (716) and operated the reproduction (717) by himself and own commissions (Bistecci). Or Lorenzo Zane was active.
The point, that no evangelists were in edition 716 might mean, that the Mantegna Tarocchi (also without evangelists) was produced, when Lazzarelli was disappointed by the death of Borso, but before Montefeltro got the manuscript - and also made some work on it. Perhaps the evangelists are Montefeltro's idea, as his "personal sign"? Which might possibly explain the eagle at the Folio 1 as sign of evangelist Johannes.

But then why were both versions in Urbino? O'Neal says: The existence of these two manuscripts to the Library of Urbino is easily explained. In the Liubrary of Urbino, according to the notes of the Index Vecchio, thefts and exchanges were not rare. The manuscript 717 was either stolen or loaned and then returned in 1523. [Citation: Lamberto Donati, "Le fonti iconografiche di alcuni manuscitti urbinati della Biblioteca Vaticana," La Bibliofilia, 60-61 (1958) 90.] During the absence of 717, (possibly it was in Florence), the librarian obtained 716, had it changed, and added it to the library.

I find my explanation better ... Bisticci made a copy (Montefeltro was not happy with imperfect manuscripts) in Florence and for this reason he needed 716 and produced 717. Possibly Bisticci made additional business with copies for others. When the copy was finished, Montefeltro got 716 back and paid for 717.

I find the bit about the evangelists quite interesting, that 716 did not mention the evangelists. Lazarelli evidently added it in the time between the completion of 716, i.e. just before Borso's 1471 death, and whenever he submitted 717 to Frederico. O'Neal does not comment on why he would have done that, so I will. Either he got the idea on his own, or he saw the S-series and decided to follow its example. That raises the question, what other differences are there between 716's illustrations and 717's. O'Neal wasn't looking closely at the drawings, or he would have noticed the discrepancies that I pointed out between them and the text. The drawings we have seen reproductions of obviously follow the E-series. But we probably have only seen the drawings from one manuscript, probably 716. Kaplan does not say which of them his reproductions come from. Trionfi seems to have used a different source. Perhaps it says. There are fewer discrepancies between the poem and the S-series.

Trionfi has used web pictures, and private book copies. The Saturn is the Vatican library edition.

...
N. 3 looks like a second copy for Bisticci himself

..
4. San Serino Marche, Biblioteca Comunale 135. No other shelf mark. Fifteenth century, paper, 20 folia unnumbered. A series of poems on the pagan gods, each followed by a drawing. It begins with a drawing of Venus. Then follow poems and drawings of Mercurius, Luna, Musica, Poesis, Apollo, Clio, Euterpe, Melpomone, Thalia, Polimia, Eratho (i.e. Tersicore, without drawings). This is a fragment of Lazzareli's De Imaginibus.

5. San Severino Marche, Biblioteca Comunale 207. Fifteenth Century, several fascicles. Fascicle 2, pt. 1. 8 unnumbered folia. Another fragment of the poem De Imaginibusis in Cod. 135 with alternating poems and drawings. This begins with a fragment of a poem followed by a drawing of Jupiter. There follows poems and drawings of Mars and Sol, and a poem of Venus.
It would of course be of interest to see both texts and illustrations here, for subtle changes.

[/quote]
This sounds, as if this are two fragments of one manuscript:

Part 1: lost
Part 2: Nr. 5 as above ... ends with Venus text
Part 3: Nr. 4 as above ... begins with Venus drawing
Part 4: lost

Huck wrote,

Trionfi has used web pictures, and private book copies. The Saturn is the Vatican library edition.

...
N. 3 looks like a second copy for Bistecci himself

On the first sentence above: which Vatican library edition-- 716 or 717?

On the second sentence: why would he make a second copy? It seems to me that Lazarelli would have known that Frederico didn't like imperfect manuscripts, and so had it recopied himself before submitting it--including redrawing the illuminations, which must have been the more expensive part. If someone else had it done, in perhaps a different place, one would expect the illuminations to be more different, the colors if not the shapes (assuming they are copied). All the more reason to see both sets of illuminations.

And yes, I do remember that they were illuminations. A momentary lapse.

I agree with you that 4 and 5 are probably parts of the same manuscript. They're in the same place, too. I misspelled "Severino" copying out one of the locations.

Sorry, I wrote originally Bistecci instead of Vespasiano da Bisticci, which should be correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespasiano_da_Bisticci

In twenty-two months Vespasiano had 200 volumes made for Cosimo by twenty-five copyists.

He devoted fourteen years to collecting the library of Federico da Montefeltro, the Duke of Urbino, organizing it in a quite modern manner; it contained the catalogues of the Vatican, of San Marco, Florence, of the Visconti Library at Pavia, and Oxford.

It was calculated, that Montefeltro gave during his life around 30.000 ducats for his library, from the Lazzarelli deal it is known, that Lazzarelli got 50 ducats. Naturally only a small part of a far more complex project.

Bisticci wrote also biographies of persons in and short before his own time. Occasionally they include details of playing card development. I worked on it a little bit:
http://tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t= ... t=bisticci

mikeh wrote:Huck wrote,

Trionfi has used web pictures, and private book copies. The Saturn is the Vatican library edition.

...
N. 3 looks like a second copy for Bistecci himself

On the first sentence above: which Vatican library edition-- 716 or 717?

On the second sentence: why would he make a second copy? It seems to me that Lazarelli would have known that Frederico didn't like imperfect manuscripts, and so had it recopied himself before submitting it--including redrawing the illuminations, which must have been the more expensive part. If someone else had it done, in perhaps a different place, one would expect the illuminations to be more different, the colors if not the shapes (assuming they are copied). All the more reason to see both sets of illuminations.

Bisticci surely didn't work for Montefeltro alone. If he would have gotten another commission, he would have had the text (if Bisticci got access of another text of some interest, Bisticci also would have copied it - business as usual). I would assume, that this was the natural behavior of a "manuscript publisher of some dimension" before book printing.

For Lazzarelli: There are insecurities and contradictions about the stay of Lazzarelli between 1473-1475. Was he still in Camerino? Or was he already in Rome? My major assumption is, that Lorenzo Zane had a talk with Lazzarelli
outside of Rome near Camerino (this is recorded) and Zane made compliments and promises, which made the poet feel rather well. Zane got in this process the function of a sort of manager or publisher (as Lazzarelli saw it)... and Zane got the manuscript for the suggestion, that he would find a sponsor and so make Lazzarelli a famous man.

Lazzarelli was likely in this period still a "young poet from the province", Zane promised the big success in the "great city" ... it worked. Lazzarelli found a sponsor (Montefeltro) and became an accepted member of the Accademia Romana. But Lazzarelli still was discontent, cause the reality of Rome was different to the dream of Rome.

Sure, it would be of interest to know all the pictures of all Lazzarelli editions. Likely not easy.

Saturn (717) ... http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/vatican.exh ... extra.html

just found .. Ludovico Lazzarelli (?)

at http://www.ludovicolazzarelli.it/
well ... this is a rather complex attempt, at least if one observes the connected persons ..
http://www.ludovicolazzarelli.it/comitato.htm

Perhaps a way to come near to the pictures ... but the last engagement for it seems to be from 2003.

Huck wrote: Sure, it would be of interest to know all the pictures of all Lazzarelli editions. Likely not easy.

Possibly Andrea has them, or access to them. Both Vatican 716 and 717 are listed in the 1987 Ferrara catalogue (nos. 12 and 13, pp. 73-75) as having been shown in "Riproduzione". I don't know if that means the whole of both volumes were photographed and bound, or what.

Ross G. R. Caldwell wrote: Possibly Andrea has them, or access to them. Both Vatican 716 and 717 are listed in the 1987 Ferrara catalogue (nos. 12 and 13, pp. 73-75) as having been shown in "Riproduzione". I don't know if that means the whole of both volumes were photographed and bound, or what.

I'll see, what I can do in this matter.

hi Mike,

I got the pages, thanks. Manuscript 716 "returned 1523" ... which is rather late. The "court of Urbino transferred in this year from Urbino to Pesaro", I got from a web source ... ... I would assume, that there is a causal relation between this and the returning book.

I'm busy these days ...