Tarot History Forum

I'm now reading Decker's article (automatically translated into Spanish). This reading helps me understand some details. I'll try to interpret Decker's text, trying to be faithful to his message. By the way, based on Decker's article, I don't see why it is said that Decker defends 1490-1500 or that he defends 1480-1500. I don't remember if there is any information about this in a private conversation you know about. I'm now studying Decker's article. Mikeh published this Decker article here:
viewtopic.php?p=27687&sid=11e0c55c65d86 ... 872#p27687


Dating Steele Sermon:

- Decker briefly describes about seven different watermarks. Each one is on the paper of some ancient book created in places like Venice, Brescia, Mantua, or Verona. No text or paper with these watermarks is known from Ferrara, but Decker says there are popular or local rumors (in Ferrara) that Steele Sermon is originally from Ferrara. Each of those seven watermarks (paper watermarks) is on some leaves of the ancient volume discovered by Robert Steele. We don't know if there are watermarks on the pages of the chapter "Ludo cum Aliis," nor do we know what they are. Perhaps Decker is aware of this detail, which, according to Mikeh, could be interesting. I imagine that perhaps some watermark in the sermon on games dates from 1503 in Venice. It would be good to ask Decker if this is true. The year 1503 is close to the year 1500. Perhaps that would explain why Decker claims that the paper in the volume is from the vicinity of Venice around the year 1500. Incidentally, he says that the origin of the text or book could have been somewhere else. That year, 1500, seems inaccurate, and we don't know if Decker mentioned it for a specific reason or as an inaccurate guideline referring to the period 1462–1515. He says that Perry dated the manuscript in the 15th century (1400-1500) in 1930 and that the USPCC dates it to 1500. These two dates combined could lead to the year 1500, but we don't know what arguments both sources may have had, and we don't know if Decker accepts them when he mentions 1500 or if he perhaps has a specific argument in favor of 1500. I suppose we scholars have given too much importance to the year 1500. I thought the watermarks were from 1500. However, Decker probably didn't have any arguments to defend that year specifically. We can ask Decker if he has arguments for dating the sermon to 1500 and not for any other nearby year (1462-1515). Incidentally, I know of no reason to dismiss 1462, which is the earliest of the watermarks Decker mentions.


Reading the Steele Sermon:

- Decker translated the Latin text transcribed by Robert Steele into English. This helps me resolve some questions I've previously raised in this forum thread. I'll take this opportunity to explain. Decker says that the fifth game on the fifth side of the die is a game called "A uno tracto e mezo," which I imagine means: A distance and a half. I discover that the note located to the left of the five alternative games is marked with "•/•" and is a note referring to the "Milaneso" game because we see that symbol written there. (I mark with two blue circle in picture below)

- Decker accepts Robert Steele's interpretation when they both say that these five games are an alternative to the five mentioned in the main text. I dont see "aliter" wrote in the manuscript but Robert Steele transcription say "aliter" when start the note bottom. I don't know if they have an argument or if they just assume that they are five games presented as an alternative. I only see ".i." (or something similar) written before "5A." Do you know if perhaps ".i." means "aliter"? (I mark with red circle and "?" in picture below).

- On the other hand, it seems that Decker is not very accurate in translating the brief note on Fuxo (in that lower note on five games) because it says "new game" when in fact the Latin note "volve cartam in principio" means something like this: card turned up at the beginning (I suppose this was a characteristic of that game). On the other hand, Robert Steele's transcription of the Milanese game says "ludus cartularum novus," which I understand as: new card game. However, Decker translates this simply as "card game" and omits "new". (I marked with green line both notes in picture below).

- I see the sign "/•" near to Falcinelle. Robert Steele add a note here: "sive, A la terza a la quarta". Decker translation dont have this note in english: "A la terza la quarta". (I marked with yellow circles in picture)

- In the transcript, I don't see the short handwritten text to the right of this bottom note. This short text say: "Eructavit meum sonus. Hae i lingua soluta de pane, qui liuit panis filiorum. In ludo hoc ludo dabo crustula a-z a-z" (or something similar). Automatic translation: "I produced my sound (my heart overflowed). These words loose from the bread, which was the children's bread. In the game in this game I will give cookies from A to Z". I dont know if that is in Robert Steele transcription or in Decker translation. Do you know?

- Decker ends the translation at the end of the enumeration of trumps, but the manuscript continues speaking ajout games. Ross has translated the following paragraph, as we know. Nice!

Magic Moon wrote: 28 Aug 2025, 13:57 This short text say: "Eructavit meum sonus. Hae i lingua soluta de pane, qui liuit panis filiorum. In ludo hoc ludo dabo crustula a-z a-z" (or something similar). Automatic translation: "I produced my sound (my heart overflowed). These words loose from the bread, which was the children's bread. In the game in this game I will give cookies from A to Z".

'Cruca' melius sonaret. Nam in lingua sclava dicitur panis; quia ludit panem filiorem. Et ludit hoc ludo dando cartulas a 3 a 3.

(Cruca would sound better, since in the Slavic language it means “bread,” because one plays with the bread of one’s children*). In this game, cards are dealt three at a time.

source: see transcript at https://www.tarock.info/steele.htm

In context

The Fifth Face: Five Games

On the fifth face, there are five points, each representing a different game:

Perdi o Vinci – “Lose or Win.”

Sette o Sei – “Seven or Six.”

Buffa Aragiato, also called Ronfa – literally “the purse is empty.” A cruel game, for it often drives players to poverty.

Scarga Lasino – “Whatever you have in the house.” Play this, and you may end up stripped bare and empty-handed

A Uno Tracto e Mezo

Alternatively:

Ronfa, a card game.

Crica, a three-card game. Cruca might be a better name, as in the Slavic tongue it means “bread,” because one plays with the bread of one’s children*) Cards are dealt three at a time.

Milanese (or “up to fifty”) – a new card game where the first to reach the target number with their cards wins.

Falcinelle (also called A la terza a la quarta) – another card game.

Fuxo – “turn the card at the beginning.” A newly invented game. If we insert an l after the f, it becomes fluxus, meaning the flux (dysentery)*. It signifies the instability of money, because just as flux (dysentery)* drains a man’s blood, so the game [drains his purse], etc.)

* Edited to make corrections to translation as proposed by Nathaniel in following post.

A couple of minor corrections:

SteveM wrote: 29 Aug 2025, 05:20
'Cruca' melius sonaret. Nam in lingua sclava dicitur panis; quia ludit panem filiorem. Et ludit hoc ludo dando cartulas a 3 a 3.

(Cruca would sound better, since in the Slavic language it means “bread,” because the game is called “bread’s child”). In this game, cards are dealt three at a time.

"Because the game is called bread’s child" is incorrect: I assume this is due to a machine translator being confused by the misprint "filiorem" in the printed version of Steele's transcript. This word should have been printed as "filiorum" (as the manuscript clearly shows). The correct translation is therefore "because one plays with the bread of one's children", i.e. the card-players are gambling away the money that they need for food for their children.
(The slightly odd expression "panis filiorum" was probably used because there was a well-known hymn with that phrase in its first stanza: https://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Ecc ... _angelorum)

Fuxo – “turn the card at the beginning.” A newly invented game. If we insert an l after the f, it becomes fluxus, meaning “flow,” which symbolizes the instability of money; just as blood flows from a man’s wound, so too can this game bleed a player dry.

Here it's "just as blood flows from a man’s wound" which is incorrect. As I wrote in an earlier post in this thread, the intended meaning must have been "just as dysentery drains a man's blood".

Nathaniel wrote: 29 Aug 2025, 10:49 A couple of minor corrections:

"Because the game is called bread’s child" is incorrect... The correct translation is therefore "because one plays with the bread of one's children", i.e. the card-players are gambling away the money that they need for food for their children...

...Here it's "just as blood flows from a man’s wound" which is incorrect. As I wrote in an earlier post in this thread, the intended meaning must have been "just as dysentery drains a man's blood".

Thanks for the corrections, I have amended my post accordingly.

Magic Moon wrote,

Decker accepts Robert Steele's interpretation when they both say that these five games are an alternative to the five mentioned in the main text. I dont see "aliter" wrote in the manuscript but Robert Steele transcription say "aliter" when start the note bottom. I don't know if they have an argument or if they just assume that they are five games presented as an alternative. I only see ".i." (or something similar) written before "5A." Do you know if perhaps ".i." means "aliter"? (I mark with red circle and "?" in picture below).

Here is the sentence in Steele's transciption:

Aliter In quinta sunt Ronfa, ludus cartularum, Crica ludus trium cartularum.

Good questions, Magic Moon. Here is one way of phrasing them.

Given that Steele's transcription has "aliter" (meaning "alternatively") and in the manuscript we see only ".i.", is the latter an abbreviation for the former? If not, where is "aliter" and what does ".i." mean?

Any ideas, anybody?

Magic Moon wrote,

We can ask Decker if he has arguments for dating the sermon to 1500 and not for any other nearby year (1462-1515). Incidentally, I know of no reason to dismiss 1462, which is the earliest of the watermarks Decker mentions.

The reason I dismissed 1462 is that it is just too far away from 1515 to be believable. Watermarks may not have changed for decades, but this is thirty-two years, if you allow that the 1515 could have been in use as early as 1495. I was guessing that two decades would be the limit on both sides of the dates Decker found for those watermarks.

Well, how about if I ask him this:

Considering that the watermarks go from 1462 to 1515, why did you say "about 1500" rather than giving a range, say 1490-1510, or 1480-1520, 1462-1515, or Depaulis's 1490-1500, etc.?

Magic Moon wrote,

We don't know if there are watermarks on the pages of the chapter "Ludo cum Aliis," nor do we know what they are. Perhaps Decker is aware of this detail, which, according to Mikeh, could be interesting. I imagine that perhaps some watermark in the sermon on games dates from 1503 in Venice. It would be good to ask Decker if this is true. The year 1503 is close to the year 1500. Perhaps that would explain why Decker claims that the paper in the volume is from the vicinity of Venice around the year 1500.

Other questions for Decker (let me know if there are more):

Do you remember if the early watermarks were early in the manuscript and the later ones further on, so that it might have been that the manuscript is a compilation of transcriptions over a period of some time?

Do you remember any watermarks on the "De Ludo" sermon's folios?

About the text in a note:

Steve, thanks for the transcription and translation of the note to the right of the note below. Robert Steele and Decker placed that note after the Crica set (as you suggest), but I couldn't see it or understand the point. Nathaniel, thanks for the details you provide in the translation. Nice !!

I only need something more: to find "aliter". Mikeh, thanks for clearly expressing my question about what the origin of "aliter" might have been.


*******

About dating the volume:

Mikeh, thanks for arguing the decision to discard 1462. Your questions for Decker sound good. Even if the dating were a period as 1480-1500 or 1490-1500, I think it would need to be justified.

You say that perhaps the manuscript was made by adding pages over several years. That's one possibility. To investigate this, it would be helpful to figure out which pages of the volume have each type of watermark, as you've suggested.

Another possibility is that the volume (the manuscript we know of) was made in a short period (for example: one month). Tonight, I noticed a detail that might be important. Decker possibly thought that, it is: the manuscript was created in a short period of time. In that case, logically, all seven types of watermarks existed when the complete manuscript volume was produced. This logically leads to the conclusion that the volume was created later rather than sooner. The reasoning is as follows. Early, it's possible that not all of these watermarks existed. However, late, all seven types already existed. It's possible that all seven types existed as early as 1462, but I'll stick to the evidence. Let's assume that each type of watermark was created in the earliest year that Decker mentions for each type of watermark. They are the oldest evidences.

With that in mind, the volume couldn't have been created before all the watermarks on the manuscript papers existed. However, some papers could be older or perhaps were still being manufactured years after the earliest record located and mentioned by Decker. In this case, it's also useful to know which 25 pages have different watermarks. Then, it seems a good question that we could send to Decker. If you want, we can take into account what I am now raising before finishing formulating the questions for Decker.

Now, I'll clearly explain the data that Decker published about the watermarks. I put it in a column and I omit the numbering of each document. This way, we can reflect on them, taking into account what I've just tried to explain. This reasoning seems obvious, but it hadn't occurred to me, and I don't remember reading it. However, some scholars may have considered it but haven't explained it in detail.

- star over balances:
Venice, 1494 and 1496; Naples, 1504. Venice, 1504.
- star over balances flanked by initials CM: Venice, 1497.
- globe surmounted with crosses: Venice, 1503.
- initial A: Venice, 1503, or Verona, 1515.
- duck: Mantua, 1462.
- duck: Verona, 1475.
- bull's head surmounted by cross entwined with serpent: Vicenza,
1492, with variations cited at Venice, 1483, and Brescia, 1473 and 1485.

I note that a duck watermark exists in 1462 and also in 1475 (I suppose it is the same duck). This is also an argument for taking 1475 as the year and discarding 1462, since possibly several of the watermarks did not yet exist in 1462.

The watermark for the year 1515 already existed in 1503. For that reason, I suppose we could also rule out 1515.

If we look at all the watermarks and their years, it seems that by 1503 they all already existed. This mark may have existed three years earlier. This may have led Decker to date the volume around 1500.

We see that some watermarks existed in the 1480s or 1490s. Perhaps this explains why some scholars date the volume to 1480-1500 or 1490-1500.


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

I am going now to do a resume with the years (bold list bottom):

I suppose the Mantua duck (1462) is the same as the Verona duck (1475) and I put both ducks together.

I don't know if the manuscript has the variations that the last watermark (bull's head) has in earliest dates. It would be good to know that detail. It seems important to try to date the manuscript volume. About this watermark, Decker put the late date (1492) first and then the early ones, indicating that they are variations, but I want to put the years in chronological order, and I suppose the variations could actually be the late ones. It would be good to see both designs to look if any of they seems as a variation.

- star + balances: 1494, 1496, 1504.
- star + balances + CM: 1497.
- globe + crosses: 1503.
- initial A: 1503, 1515.
- duck: 1462, 1475.
- bull + cross + serpent (variation): 1483, 1473, 1485.
- bull + cross + serpent: 1492.

I've combined the two ducks and separated the two bulls. Therefore, they're still seven different watermarks. Decker says there are seven, but I don't know if he's counting two ducks or two bulls.

The important thing is that in this list we see the years clearly.

Magic Moon: Your summaries are helpful. We have the extreme dates of 1462 and 1515. - not for the manuscript, but for the paper used in it. It now seems to me that neither can be disregarded - but only for the paper, not the manuscript, for which, as you say, both dates are too extreme. But how extreme? After 1462, the same watermark might be used by the same producer for another 20 years. Then it might sit in a warehouse for, say, as much as 10 years. So the paper could be used up to around 1492. If paper is produced with a certain watermark in 1515, if it's only used for twenty years, the earliest it would be produced is 1495. We cannot allow time sitting in a warehouse in that case. We can allow time in a warehouse only when estimating the latest the paper could be used: say, around 1555 (20 years from 1515 for the watermark, 10 years for sitting in a warehouse). But that is far too late for our manuscript, since the latest date for the 1462 watermarked paper is 1492. So with my assumptions, 1492-1495 is the date range. But the paper could easily sit around 3 more years than my 10-year estimate. So 1495 is the median year. Allowing 5 years on either side, as my assumptions are somewhat arbitrary, and it would take some time to complete the entire manuscript - certainly more than a month - we arrive at Depaulis's 1490-1500. Or maybe 1485-1505. What do you think?

It is then plausible that someone should, in the mid-1490s or later, up to around 1520, correct on that same manuscript the spelling of "fluxus" and remark that it was a new game, given that it seems to have been played in 1492-3 by the Ferrara court, along with scartino, which was definitely new, despite "fluxus" having been prohibited twenty years earlier.

Magic Moon wrote: 29 Aug 2025, 16:25
I note that a duck watermark exists in 1462 and also in 1475 (I suppose it is the same duck). This is also an argument for taking 1475 as the year and discarding 1462, since possibly several of the watermarks did not yet exist in 1462.

Possibly other dates too if we look at the motif outside of Italy? Was watermarked paper imported?

e.g. Duck WM motif, Vienna, Austria 1451-1500

Do we have images of the watermarks or just descriptions? Here is an example of a watermark of a balance surmounted by a star from Venice 1475, but it may be very different in other ways to that described:

Magic Moon wrote: 29 Aug 2025, 16:25
- bull's head surmounted by cross entwined with serpent: Vicenza,
1492, with variations cited at Venice, 1483, and Brescia, 1473 and 1485.

Something then similar to this:

Rottenburg, 1489