Talk:Ludovico Sforza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Images[edit]

This article has way too many images for its length. If it's not expanded, the two that aren't of il Moro should be removed. ɱўɭĩєWhat did I dohttp://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.pngwrong 23:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

One image that should go is the one that shows La Belle Ferrionare as definitively Lucrezia. It's simply not known which woman in the Duke of Milan's househeld is depicted.Levalley (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
As it's been awhile and no dissent, I'm making that edit.--LeValley 03:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Cecilia was driven out of the house after Ludovico's marriage with Beatrice (and married off to some other guy). The portrait went with her. Beatrice would not have just sat around on her thumbs watching Leonardo paint some other mistress. Exact date on the painting is unknown, but it appears to be after Beatrice married Ludovico. Cecilia's portrait was later referred to by Beatrice's sister (who apparently did get to see it, prompting her to beg Leonardo to paint one of her). She wrote directly to Cecilia to ask it be sent to her. It's a nice legend (that Sforza was so powerful he forced his wife to accept his gumare's, but not supported by fact.). And I want to see an English language citation on the book burning issue. An academic history of Milan in that period or a well-researched bio of Ludovico will do. We have several here at home - no mention of this incident.--LeValley 03:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The mulberry tree[edit]

The mulberry tree was on his blason because of his name, not vice versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.184.19 (talk) 05:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Moro[edit]

There seems to be an exclusively Anglo-Saxon dispute about the meaning of the attribute "il moro". Well, "il moro" in italian does not just mean "the moor". More simply it is the masculine equivalent of "brunette". Every many that is not just straight blonde can be called "moro". So moro in his case might just very likely- and very simply - refer to his jet black hair. --141.151.247.85 (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree.--LeValley 03:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Il moro, la mora[edit]

As a matter of fact, il moro IS the name of the tree as all trees (!) in Italian are masculine. It is the fruit that is feminine, therefore la mora. Whoever wrote this should correct it and pay more attention next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.212.144.123 (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The last supper[edit]

It says no-where on the page that he commissioned the last supper (leonardo). I haven't edited a page before so could somebody else do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.97.163 (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try. Not only is that information missing from this page (along with a host of other information about Ludovico which is historically as certain as history gets, such as where he died, under what circumstances and where he is buried), but the article confidently states that La Belle Ferrionere is one of his mistresses - something that was made up long after the fact, and which Louvre art historians are very unsure about. Indeed, it's a subject of so much debate and research, it's ludicrous to state that this is Lucrezia, when the timing of the picture indicates it might be Beatrice herself, beautified by Leonardo (who definitely drew preliminary profile pictures of her, as he did for his other three quarter subjects - look it up!)--LeValley 03:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Disentangling oft-repeated lore from fact[edit]

Somewhere, I have good citations for the 2 mistresses named (but not for many mistresses, as in the older version). Further, everything I've read has the two mistresses departing the premises once Beatrice arrived. Leonardo was still in Il Moro's employ at the time of the wedding (obviously), and so knew Beatrice until she died. Did he sneak around and paint the other mistress after the wedding? What's the date on this affair? As stated in the article, Cecilia was Ludovico's mistress before Beatrice, but she was quickly married off and the child she had with Ludovico was raised in her new husband's household. Ludovico kindly gave her quite a nice dowry. The real story is much more interesting than this article makes it seem.--LeValley 03:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Portrait of Beatrice is probably not[edit]

See Julia Cartwright's voluminous research in her book, Beatrice D'Este, Duchess of Milan. The hair decorations are not consistent with what Beatrice would have worn, and that it is inconsistent with other portraits of Beatrice - instead, she thinks is Bianca Sforza, his daughter. This article doesn't say, as far as I can tell, who Bianca's mom is (yet another mistress? Where is this information coming from? I want citations!)--LeValley 04:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

RESA79: I am conducting research on this portrait since 2,5 years. The majority amongst art historians say it's not a portrait by da Vinci (contemporary: e.g. Kemp, Zöllner). The way the portrait is painted bears similiarities with the "Red Angel with a Lute" in the national Gallery London, for the eyes are painted in a quite similar way. Since the angel was part of the co-production de Predis/da Vinci "Virgin of the Rocks", it is quite difficult to say who painted the angel although the contract says it is de Predis. Morelli was the one who changed the attribution of the portrait from da Vinci to de Predis. One thing is absolutely clear: it is not a portrait of Beatrice d'Este but much more likely of Anna Sforza (compare with http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucrezia,_Bruto_e_Collatino). There are several portraits of Beatrice d'Este preserved and she looks quite different and by far not so attractive.

Sources:

Lermolieff, Ivan (aka Giovanni Morelli), 1890. Kunstkritische Studien über Italienische Malerei: Die Galerien Borghese und Doria Panfili in Rom. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus.

von Bode, Wilhelm, 1889. Ein Bildnis der zweiten Gemahlin Kaiser Maximilians, Bianca Maria Sforza, von Ambrogio de Predis. Jahrbuch der Königlich Preussischen Kunstsammlungen, 10. Bd., 2. H. (1889), pp. 71-79.

von Bode, Wilhelm, 1915. Leonardos Bildnis der jungen Dame mit dem Hermelin aus dem Czartoryski-Museum in Krakau und die Jugendbilder des Künstlers. Jahrbuch der Königlich Preussischen Kunstsammlungen, 36. Bd. (1915), pp. 189-207.

von Bode, Wilhem, 1921. Studien über Leonardo da Vinci. Berlin: G. Grote’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

von Liphart, Ernst Friederich, 1912. Kritische Gänge und Reiseeindrücke. Jahrbuch der Königlich Preussischen Kunstsammlungen, 33. Bd. (1912), pp. 193-224.

von Seidlitz, Wilhelm, 1906. Leonardo da Vinci und Ambrogio Preda. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, Band XXVI, Heft I, pp. 1-48.

Kemp, Martin/Cotte, Pascal, 2010. "La Bella Principessa": The Profile Portrait of a Milanese Woman. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Cartwright, Julia, 1914. Italian Gardens of the Renaissance. London: Smith, Elder & Co.

Cartwright, Julia, 1920. Beatrice d’Este, Duchess of Milan, 1475-1497: A Study of the Renaissance. 8th Ed. London: J.M. Dent & Sons.

Pascal Cotte, Lumiere Technology: http://www.lumiere-technology.com/news/Sforziada%20Owners%20Genealogy.pdf.

The true portrait of Beatrice d'Este is possibly this one:

Lorenzo Costa (Elder), ca. 1490. Beatrice d’Este, oil on wood, cm 46.5 x 35. At: Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi. URL: http://www.polomuseale.firenze.it/catalogo/scheda.asp?nctn=00287160&value=1# (Dec 2012). Please note: the Galleria degli Uffizi lists this portrait as a Ritratto di Barbara Pallavicino of the 1510s by Araldi Alessandro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RESA79 (talkcontribs) 12:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Just deleted the portrait by de Predis (attr.). This is definitely not Beatrice d'Este. Check the discussion under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beatrice_d%27Este#Art_historians_at_Pinocateca.2FBiblioteca_Ambrosiana_say_it.27s_a_Leonardo — Preceding unsigned comment added by RESA79 (talkcontribs) 20:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The infobox dates on his reign are wrong[edit]

They have him reigning in the 1700's! Someone reversed some numbers somewhere. I'm not sure I should attempt to edit an info box - but if I can easily grab the dates from the article, I'll try to fix it. Last time I tried an infobox edit, I screwed it up, so there's that.--LeValley 04:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Did what I could. Ludovico continued to claim he was Duke of Milan until the bitter end (perhaps his death) but it's specious to claim he was still Duke when the French had deposed and imprisoned him. In this case, anyway "dates of reign" are ambiguous - even the beginning date is ambiguous, since he was de facto ruler long before the duchy properly went to him.--LeValley 04:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Beatrice's age[edit]

She was born in June 1475 and married in January 1491. She was therefore 15. I'm making that change.--LeValley 00:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Odd comma placement may lead to the wrong interpretation?[edit]

This sentence confuses me:

"As none of the other Italian states would help, the ruler who had invited the French into Italy four years earlier, Louis, was successful in driving out Ludovico from Milan."

I think it may be due to odd comma placement: it implies that Louis was "the ruler who had invited the French into Italy four years earlier" (instead of Sforza); and it also then starts and ends with disconnected fragments.

I think the correct format should be:

"As none of the other Italian states would help the ruler who had invited the French into Italy four years earlier, Louis was successful in driving out Ludovico from Milan."

The first clause explains the reason for the second clause, and it reads more clearly that way. But I'm not an expert on the subject, so I'm not sure I've got it correct.166.249.96.233 (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)