Tarot History Forum

Magic Moon wrote:

You seem to be mentioning the date 1468-1485 in relation to the sermon written by James. Right? I don't understand why you think James didn't write his sermon book before he stopped giving sermons (1467). If he started giving sermons in 1420, he could have started writing them in any year. Right? Perhaps there's some solid argument I'm unaware of. You're making some insinuations, but I don't fully understand the logic or the need behind that assumption. You say that James's text was not disseminated before 1467. How do you know that? The date of the surviving copies may be useful.

I would distinguish six items of interest, at a minimum: James' oral sermon, James' original manuscript containing "De Ludo", James' preserved manuscripts containing "de Ludo", the Steele preacher's oral sermon, the Steele preacher's first manuscript with other sermons, the Steele preacher's preserved manuscript.

My 1468-1485 was in reference to the Steele preacher's oral sermon. The manuscript versions would be later.

The range 1420-1467 was in reference to James' oral sermon "De Ludo." In this case, the only preserved manuscripts containing this sermon are after 1467, because they all contain around 100 sermons, and he says at the beginning of one autograph sermon that he preached between 1420 and 1467. This statement would have been written after 1467.

I allow that he could have started the autograph manuscripts before then, but he wouldn't have finished them until after 1467. Of course it would be nice to know when these manuscripts (or manuscript) was finished; but all we know is that it was after 1467.

We also don't know if the text of "De Ludo" was disseminated before 1467, but there is no evidence of it, or any other reason to think that it would have been before then. There are a couple of small manuscripts from 1442 and 1450, but they are not such that we can infer that "De Ludo" circulated in manuscript separately.

I have no idea when James orally gave his sermon. I have not seen any evidence one way or another. All I can say with some confidence is that it wa between 1420 and 1467, and I suspect after 1425, when Bernardino gave his sermon in Bologna, or after 1427, when he gave a similar sermon in Siena.

Andrea Vitali tells me that there was a conference last year in Viterbo on James's sermons, and that he has written a colleague in Viterbo for more information.

Magic Moon wrote,

Then, you say that 1480 seems a reasonable date for Steele's Sermon. I don't think you're referring to the surviving copy. You're referring to the time when Steele's Sermon was first written. However, you mentioned 1485 for James. It doesn't make sense that James could be later than Steele.

I meant to say that 1480 was a reasonable date for the Steele Sermon preacher's oral sermon on games. I did not mean to suggest 1485 for James's oral sermon "De Ludo". It was delivered by 1467, almost certainly. I have no suggestion for when the written sermon was available, except probably after 1467.

Magic Moon wrote,

However, something Nathaniel says is interesting. He claims that two other sources (arround 1550) use the name Prudence for the Old Man and the name Malice for the Hanged Man. Do we know which two sources these are?

If you will find Nathaniel's post, perhaps I can help. At the moment, I do not know of any with the precise word "malitia." Piscina's Discorso is 1565, which is close to the time you suggest, but his phrase is "speratori di i prudenti consegli", despisers of prudent counsel (as the translators read it), for the Hanged Man, while the Old Man represents "un prudente conseglio", i.e. prudent counsel. See pp. 20-21 at https://www.google.com/books/edition/Co ... frontcover. The word "prudente" figures in the description of both figures, one positively and the other negatively.

Prudence as Old Man or Hanged Man:

Ah, so the word Prudence (or something similar) was used by Piscina for the Old Man and also for the Hanged Man. That's interesting! Perhaps Nathaniel, in his article (recently published in Playing Cards magazine) mentions the other source that calls the Old Man Prudence.

NATHANIEL:
Do you mention this both sources?Perhaps, imperiali is one source and Piscina is the second ¿?


******

Sermons and documents as chronological steps:

Mikeh, thanks for the explanations. Now I understand your statements much better. I find it helpful that you've specified six stages. It's very illuminating to know which one we're referring to in each statement. Thank you.

There's a curious stage in your chronological classification. It hadn't occurred to me that the author of the Steele Sermon was a preacher. I thought it was possible to write a sermon without having delivered it orally in front of an audience. I don't know if the author of the Sermon Steele preached in front of an audience, and I don't know if he preached that same sermon before writing it. Perhaps it's true that that oral stage necessarily existed, as you say. That seems logical. Possibly, that was the custom. Perhaps sermons always existed orally before being written down.

Regarding James's published sermon "De Ludo," it would be good if Depaulis could explain why he dated it to 1460. It also occurs to me that perhaps the author of the sermon, Steele, heard James's sermon and wrote it down before reading it in print. But it seems reasonable to assume that shortly after 1467, James published his 100 sermons, and shortly after that, someone else wrote the original Steele sermon.

****

Ross and Depaulis about 1467:

viewtopic.php?p=27624#p27624

Ross addressed (in that link) the issue of Thierry Depaulis's Fluxus game supposed existing in 1467. I roughly understand what Ross is saying. I find it odd that someone would confuse 1557 with 1467 (I admit that in Grita Trento the second 5 in 1557 looks a bit like a 6). However, Ross says that this Trent document is numbered 1467. Is the number 1467 a year or is it a reference in the archive that just happens to look like a year and isn't actually a year? Maybe you have talked about this but I can't find it. I can't find that number in the provided archive link about Grita Trento (1557). I thought it was a document from 1557 where Fuxo is mentioned in 1467, but it seems that we still don't know why Depaulis said 1467. It would be good if someone asked Depaulis about this detail 1467 (Fluxus game) and about 1460 (De Ludo by James).

******

Fluxus notes:

I look that Nathaniel mentioned page 208r (reverse) for the first note on Fuxo but it is folio 208 (front) so the second note on Fluxus (next page) is 208r (back, reverse: "vuelto" in spanish). It is in pictures below, where I merked both with sky blue.

I have compared the Latin text published by Robert Steele in 1900 with the original document. I see that this part of the text corresponds to the bottom note on folio 208 (front). That note mentions five games. That note has schematic structure but Robert Steele wrote it as a linear and contunuous text. The final part is from the other note, as I'll indicate. I am going to put that later in english.

"Aliter In quinta sunt Ronfa, ludus cartularum, Crica ludus trium cartularum. ('Cruca' melius sonaret. Nam in lingua sclava dicitur panis; quia ludit panem filiorem. Et ludit hoc ludo dando cartulas a 3 a 3.) Milaneso; vel al 50, (ad quem numerum qui citius pervenerint cum cartulis lucrantur), ludus cartularum novus. Falcinelle (sive, A la terza a la quarta) ludus cartularum. Fuxo, volve cartam in principio. (Ludus cartularum noviter inventus. Sed interpone l post f, quid est fluxus. Et significat instabilitatem denariorum, quia sicut fluxus emittat sanguinem hominis sic ludus, &c.)"

Aitomatic translation to english:
"Otherwise In the fifth are Ronfa, a card game, Crica a game of three cards. ('Cruca' would sound better. For in the Slav language it is called bread; because it plays bread more filiorem. And it plays this game by giving cards from 3 to 3.) Milanese; or al 50, (to which number those who reach it first with cards win), a new card game. Falcinelle (or, A la terza a la quarta) a card game. Fuxo, turn the card at the beginning. (A newly invented card game. But insert l after f, what is flux. And it signifies the instability of coins, because as flux emits the blood of a man so does the game, &c.)"

It is noted that the last part (marked in parentheses by Robert Steele) was inserted there by Robert but it is the bottom note on the following page, it is, 208 reverse.

The main text had already mentioned five card suits for the five-point die face. I don't quite understand why five more suits were added in this bottom note on folio 208 reverse. Ronfa cards game is mentioned in both groups of five games: main text and bottom note. The note on Ronfa on the right margin is integrated into the main text (I mark it with orange color). I don't know what is something similar to "pucti fig" in the main text (I marked it in transparent green in the image).

Magic Moon:

Thanks for saying where you recall Nathaniel's information. In The Playing Card 53:1 he writes, in a footnote after first discussing Imperiali:

other 16th century sources from northern Italy associate the Old Man similarly with prudence, while “Malizia” (also
spelled “Malitia”) – which at the time could mean slyness and craftiness, vice, sin and wickedness, sickness and corrup-
tion – seems to have been an alternate name for the “Traitor” or Hanged Man in parts of northeastern Italy, because the
name also appears (misprinted as “Militia”) in verses by Venetian poet Benedetto Clario which were published about
the same time that Imperiali wrote his Risposta (Dummett, Il mondo e l’angelo, 412).

That is all I find. Clario's poem was found by Depaulis and brought to our attention on this Forum by M.M. Filesi (search "Clario"). Nathaniel also quoted the above in an earlier post on this thread.

Steele is not the "author" of the Steele sermon. He is the scholar who transcribed it in 1900. The author, annotator, and copyist(s) are unknown. I suppose you know that, but your English says otherwise, and it needs to be clarified for other readers.

The Steele sermon is from before any widespread use of printed texts. Moreover, the written form is in Latin, a language known only to educated persons, who are not the preacher's intended audience. So it was surely delivered orally in the vernacular, although most likely from notes prepared in advance, which the preacher would have saved. The manuscript version is primarily for other preachers, I would think.

The "r" in a folio number reference stands for "recto", not "reverse"; "v" stands for "verso".

Your questions about the manuscript pages are of interest. Are any of the last five games in the paragraph part of the preacher's original sermon? If not, then the "noviter inventu" is indeed from the annotator's time, one or another (since the list is there twice), although what "noviter inventu" implies, as I have indicated, and the exactitude of his knowledge of playing-card history, are hard to say.

ROSS please:

Where is the Studi Trentino number 1467 written? Did you see it on that archive's website? Is it a cataloging number or a year? You say it's a number. I don't see where you read it to write it here on the forum. Thanks.


*******

Hi Mikeh:

Based on your comment, I reviewed my text and discovered that the automatic translator made a mistake on a detail that I just corrected in my post. Exactly. Steele transcribed the latin text when, in 1900, he published an article on the Ludo cum Aliis manuscript. I like to call it that so as not to confuse us with Steele, who is a modern scholar. His transcription from 1900 is not exactly the same as the original document.

The title of the sermon on games is said to be "Sermo perutilis de ludo cum aliis" but I still haven't been able to locate the exact place where that title is supposedly written in the document. I would like to find it in the pictures, probably in the first pages.

I saw that some Spanish popularizer make a mistake because they write "perlutis" which refers to something purified, but it's incorrect in this context and isn't the word used by Andrea Vitali. There are also grammatical problems with the translation of "aliis". Some popularizers translate it as "chance" or "dice" but this declension suggests that the correct translation is "game with others". I suppose that it is: games with other people.

I suppose that's the name of the sermon on games. It is, the complete volume of various sermons (written by that anonymous Franciscan) should have had a different title in the past. By the way, I don't know if the name "Steele sermon" refers to the entire volume or just the sermon on games that is included in that old volume found by Robert Steele.

Thanks for the explanation about recto (r) because I was confused when interpreting it as reverse.

Mikeh asked:
"Are any of the last five games in the paragraph part of the preacher's original sermon? If not..."

The name Ronfa isn't written in the main text, where that same game is called Buffa. The word Ronfa is written in the note in the right margin (I marked it with an orange arc in the photograph I published yesterday). That note says that Buffa was also called Ronfa. Then, we have the lower note with five games, one of which is Ronfa.

I don't understand if the five games in the lower note are meant to replace those in the main text or if perhaps they are five games that should be located on the last dot on the face of the die, which has five dots. I'd like to understand why the footnote mentions five games added to or replacing the five in the main text. To resolve this doubt, it might be helpful to study the beginning of the footnote. I'm not sure if it begins at the end of that paragraph in the main text, where I read something similar to "pucti fig" (I've highlighted it in transparent green). Robert Steele's transcription of the bottom note begins with: "Aliter in quinta sunt Ronfa..." (on the other hand, Ronfa is in the fifth...). But I don't see that part of the text in this note on the old document, except that there are words I don't understand: there is something written at the beginning of the bottom note, just to the left of the blue arrow I marked pointing to Fluxus.

I'm interested in any explanation on this matter. Probably, it is interesting the hypothesis you've put forward regarding the possibility that Ronfa isn't mentioned in the main text. I'm not sure I understand your hypothesis. I'm stuck becouse I dont understand why there are five games added (note below) to the five games (main text).

Now I've tried to answer now your question. I do now a short resume. The word Ronfa isn't in the main text, but in a note in the right margin. The main text mentions the game Buffa, which was the same game as Ronfa, according to the note on the right.

I don't know if there are more games repeated in both groups. The one I see that's possibly repeated is Ronfa. The other four games have different names. I don't think they were the same games because Fluxus is one of them, and I'm not aware of it being the same game as any of the games mentioned in the main text.

PD: Your reflections on the subjectivity of "new game" or "something new" have been clearly expressed. It's true that this issue is very relative and subjective. Nathaniel believes that a new game is one created just a few years ago. I think the 1-20 year margin is quite reasonable. I think a game is still new when it's 10 years old. It doesn't look like we can say much more on that matter.

To the right of the bottom note on page 208 recto, there is a short text that may not be in Robert Steele's transcription. Do you find it in Robert transcription?

https://www.tarock.info/steele.htm

As for the five games in that note, I suppose they are noted as an alternative to the five games mentioned in the main text, but then it would have been logical to cross them out from the main text. Perhaps the reader could choose. Or perhaps it was desired to offer two possibilities.

The Fluxus game is not mentioned in the main text. I suppose this makes Nathaniel think that the Fluxus game did not yet exist when the main text was written. However, I think that perhaps the Fluxus game already existed, but the author didn't think of it or didn't know about it yet, so he didn't mention it.

Mikeh wrote:
"Are any of the last five games in the paragraph part of the preacher's original sermon? If not, then the "noviter inventu" is indeed from the annotator's time, one or another (since the list is there twice), although what "noviter inventu" implies, as I have indicated, and the exactitude of his knowledge of playing-card history, are hard to say".

Sorry. I dont understand this hypothesis by Mikeh.

I've noticed some details regarding certain topics we're discussing.

■ Nathaniel said that the Traitor card was called Malizia in some verses wrote by Benedetto Clario written around 1550. Mikeh mentioned that few days ago but now I understand it. I fond a text by Filesi about Clario here (link):
http://forum.tarothistory.com/viewtopic ... ieco#p7877

In this link, the text by Filesi with the poem is the following:

<< 1550, Bologna: Benedetto Clario Cieco. Gioco de primiera, con una nova gionta composta per Benedetto Clario Cieco Venetiano. (Reference: Dummett, Il Mondo e l’Angelo, 1993). Disorder and not complet.

“In alto con triumphi & con Tarocchi
Uno che lasciate gir
Angel giustitia
Stella Militia
Il Diavol, Matto
Bagatellato
Sol, Luna, Mondo
Vechio giocondo
Che la primiera de gli altri giochi è’l fior" >>

■ It seems to me that the main text in "quinta instancia" (five points on one side of the common die) mentions only four games. The last sentence of that paragraph says: "Quinto A uno tracto e mezo". I put the text below, where you could see it. I don't know how to translate that phrase. I conceibe two options:

▪︎ It doesn't seem to mention any game. Why isn't a fifth game mentioned, and are five games added in the bottom note?

▪︎ The name of the fifth game is: "Uno tracto e mezo". It is logic. "Quinto A" can be translated as: Fifth (game).

■ Following "Quinto A uno tracto e mezo" is written "pucti fig" (or something similar). Then the lower note begins, with five games.

Now I finally understand what "pucti fig" is. Actually, that's part of the six-point paragraph that begins below. The text is: "puncti significantes". I separate it with green line in the picture below.

---------------

In a previous post of mine, I included the text transcribed by Robert Steele, which corresponds to the note in the lower margin (folio 208 recto). I now include the complete paragraph on the five-point side with a game die. I put the first part in bold because it's in the main text of the manuscript. The second part is the one I published previously, which corresponds to the note below, but is possibly not identical to the manuscript. Robert may have made some minor changes or omitted a sentence, as I matked with red circle in picture below.

Robert Steele transcription (latin):
"In quinta stantia sunt quinque puncti figurantes quinque ludos. Quorum primus dicitur Perdi o vinci. Secundus dicitur Sette o sey. Tertius Buffa Aragiato, aut Ronfa, id est desconza hay la borsa (del buffa aragiato). Et est crudelis ludus, quia multos ducit ad paupertatem. Quartus dicitur Scarga lasino, id est quicquid habet in domo. Et remansit nudus et levis. Quintus A uno tracto e mezo. Aliter In quinta sunt Ronfa, ludus cartularum, Crica ludus trium cartularum. ('Cruca' melius sonaret. Nam in lingua sclava dicitur panis; quia ludit panem filiorem. Et ludit hoc ludo dando cartulas a 3 a 3.) Milaneso; vel al 50, (ad quem numerum qui citius pervenerint cum cartulis lucrantur), ludus cartularum novus. Falcinelle (sive, A la terza a la quarta) ludus cartularum. Fuxo, volve cartam in principio. (Ludus cartularum noviter inventus. Sed interpone l post f, quid est fluxus. Et significat instabilitatem denariorum, quia sicut fluxus emittat sanguinem hominis sic ludus, &c.)"

Automatic translation of bold part (main text):
"In the fifth stanza there are five points representing five games. The first of which is called Perdi o vinci. The second is called Sette o sey. The third Buffa Aragiato, or Ronfa, that is desconza hay la borsa (from buffa aragiato). And it is a cruel game, because it leads many to poverty. The fourth is called Scarga lasino, that is whatever he has in the house. And he remained naked and light. The fifth A uno tracto e mezo".

I still don't understand where in Robert's transcription is what I have marked in red in the manuscript. In particular, I don't see in the transcript what is in the red circle on the right (picture below).

Magic Moon wrote:

Mikeh wrote:
"Are any of the last five games in the paragraph part of the preacher's original sermon? If not, then the "noviter inventu" is indeed from the annotator's time, one or another (since the list is there twice), although what "noviter inventu" implies, as I have indicated, and the exactitude of his knowledge of playing-card history, are hard to say".

Sorry. I dont understand this hypothesis by Mikeh.

let me try to paraphrase what I was trying to say. Nathaniel had said that "noviter inventu" was from the perspective of the annotator's time, not the preacher's. If only the main text - without the text in the side, bottom, or top margin - is the preacher's, then the addition of "fluxus" is from an annotator's time, that is, the annotator who introduced the term, with the spelling "fuxo" - because the preacher himself never used the term. However, if the preacher himself wrote the text in the right margin, then it is still unclear whether "noviter inventu" means in the preacher's time or the annotator's time - because the annotator might have been meaning to add to the preacher's list with more games from the preacher's own time.

About "newly invented" (noviter inventu), there are two ways in which the game so designated might be from 20 years or more earlier: if what was meant by the term in the context of the sermon was that it was up to 20 years earlier, and (2) if the writer was mistaken in his belief that the game was "newly invented" even in that sense - that in fact it was newer than the person thought it was. For example, he might have thought that flusso was invented in 1475 (when it was invented at least 10 years earlier); in that case, his statement that flusso was "newly invented" might have been said even in 1490 or 1495, and certainly far later than 1465. We cannot assume that the annotator knew about flusso being banned in 1470 in Ferrara.

I don't know if that clarifies my meaning or not. I hope so.

Magic Moon wrote

Following "Quinto A uno tracto e mezo" is written "pucti fig" (or something similar). Then the lower note begins, with five games.

Now I finally understand what "pucti fig" is. Actually, that's part of the six-point paragraph that begins below. The text is: "puncti significantes". I separate it with green line in the picture below.

By "the lower note" do you mean the text immediately below the green line, beginning "In 6a stanza sunt 6 ....."?

Who do you think wrote the list of games numbered 8 through 16 in the right margin? Who do you think wrote the part you separated out in orange?
Who do you think wrote the list of 6 games, unnumbered, at the bottom? I cannot tell one person's writing from another here.

I do see the "al 50" part of the part you circled red at left. Could the rest be "vel al 50, (ad quem numerum qui citius pervenerint cum cartulis lucrantur)", from Steele's transcript?

Ross published something about Fluso game in 1467. The question is that this date is a mistake in a document that we know.

Ross post:
viewtopic.php?p=27624&sid=f68fc31d60132 ... 89d#p27624

It seems that Depaulis was wrong when he say that Fluso existed in 1467. Probably, this game existed in 1467. But probably we dont know evidences about it. I understand the confusion now.

I have found the number 1467 in one of the pages of Studi Trentini (1925) published by Ross: "ms. 1467" (manuscript 1467). I mark it with red circle. Ok, this is the number of the manuscript. This is not the date of Martinus grida, wrote in 1557. I supose that perhaps the manuscript is numbered with 1467 becouse perhapsthis date is mentioned in the first pages of the manuscript. I dont have access to the complet manuscript. But, in any case, the number 1467 is not the year when Martinus wrote the Crida with the Fluso game mentioned. Probably, Depaulis was confused becouse he read the short note (1935) by Bosshard: "Grida Trento, 1467". Ok. At least now I understand the basics of this problem.

PS:
Ross, thanks for resolving my issue in the Facebook group.

Magic Moon wrote: 03 Aug 2025, 14:54 I have found the number 1467 in one of the pages of Studi Trentini (1925) published by Ross: "ms. 1467" (manuscript 1467).

I'm glad you finally found it, Magic Moon.

I don't think it's right to say that Thierry was confused. He simply trusted Bosshard's reading of Martinus. It was Bosshard who was confused.

https://books.google.com/books?redir_es ... e&q=flusso

Ross, yes:

That's a good point. Bosshard doesn't specifically say that 1467 is a year, but the context suggests that, since the other sources he cites also have a number that looks like a year. In any case, it seems logical that Fluxus existed in 1467, since it was banned in Ferrara in 1470. It's a strange coincidence. And I also find it odd that the manuscript is classified with a number that looks like a year. They could be coincidences. We have no evidence that Fluxus existed in 1467, but it possibly existed or was invented in a year close to that.


******

Mato note - nisi velint:

Nathaniel interpreted the placement of the "nisi velint" note as being different from what we see in Robert Steele's transcription. nathanieln explained it in this same thread here:

viewtopic.php?p=27273#p27273

He say that this note had to be between "comburere" and "incurrere". I am looking for both words in the maniscript. I dont find it. I think that both words are not in Robert transcription. Perhaps this words are in the part of the text that is after the trionfi list, that is the last part in the Robert transcription.

And there is an other problem:

In the note, I see: •/ si velint. I dont understand where do you see: ni si. I see only "si" or only "ni". I dont see more letters in this small note.


*******

Fluxus notes:

I'm trying to locate the note markings. I don't know if the arrows and circles I've placed in the image reflect that I've interpreted the note markings correctly.