Tarot History Forum

mikeh wrote: 01 Sep 2025, 09:47 Thanks, Steve, for posting all the watermarks. I am not sure about your conclusion, "last quarter of the 15th century". For one thing, we can't allow storage time when subtracting from the 1515. If a watermark is in use in 1515, and it may have been in use for 20 years, or will be in use for 20 years, we can't tack storage time onto how much earlier the paper for that page of the ms. might have been made. Storage time is only after paper is made, not before. If one of the watermarks is 1515, then probably that paper was produced and used in 1495 or later. 1475 is just too early, even 1485. On the other end, paper with a watermark of 1462 can have been produced by 1482 and used even later, perhaps by 1492, even 1495. For one and the same manuscript of 407 folios, easy enough to do in one year, the overlap between early and late is rather small, 1495-1500, or at most 1490-1500, as Depaulis estimates. All this is assuming that there is a watermark in the ms. precisely similar to the one dated 1515, as opposed to 1503, and 1462 as opposed to 1473. Without the 1515 and 1462, it is more like 1480-1505. I'll write Decker about this issue.

Thanks for clarifying that it is one ms. I wasn't clear as to whether it was one ms. or a bound compilation of several (with annotations by the same hand, presumably the compiler).

I think the safest position is that the Steele Sermon manuscript belongs in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. That range covers Steele’s earlier suggestion of 1470/1480, as well as later estimates of 1490–1500. It’s really the only window we can all agree on with any confidence. Nathaniel makes a good case that the sermon itself may go back earlier (1460–1470).

About the “20 + 10 years” rule for watermark lifespan: If I am reading that Briquet data correctly then it is clearly unreliable and an arguably unrealistic measure. From Briquet we have examples where a watermark type lasted much longer - 38, 46, even 145 years.* For that reason, I tried a more conservative 30-year buffer instead. If you apply that to the Steele watermarks, you get an overlap around 1474–1492. That still lines up with the “last quarter of the 15th century” compromise, though it’s only an exercise and shouldn’t be treated as precise due to the speculative and unreliable nature of the measure.

Decker’s uncertainty over the “letter A” watermarks makes me wary of using the 1515 example as an upper bound, the two A types differ primarily in the vertical line of the 1515 example, which may not have been clear to the eye thus Decker says it is one OR the other. I’d lean toward the 1503–1504 examples instead, which avoids relying on a disputed identification.

As for the 1462 duck watermark, I haven’t discounted it since Decker doesn’t mark it as an “either/or” case with the other Duck WM, the two of which are clearly distinguishable from each other in size, shape and orientation.

So overall, I’d place the manuscript somewhere in the 1475–1495 range, which fits comfortably with the idea that it’s a product of the last quarter of the fifteenth century.

SteveM

* This is the case with Briquet who grouped some designs into a "family group" that were similar to each other but not identical, and thus could be found over large periods of time. Modern catalogues such as the Bernstein project subdivide Briquet’s broad groups into smaller, datable clusters.

When Decker gave Briquet numbers, did he intend them as exact matches? His use of “or” in the case of the letter A watermark shows he wasn’t always certain. His use of 'likenesses' seems he sometimes meant “this is the closest likeness I can find,” rather than “identical.” It’s hard to be sure how systematically he compared all possibilities, did he measure them or just compare visually.

Given the disparity between catalogued and extant watermarks, it is quite rare to find a WM you are searching for identical to one catalogued, and the odds of finding seven or eight matches? I imagine vanishingly small.

If the watermarks are identical to the Briquet numbers, then a 20 year window I think could arguably be a reasonable measure. Discounting the 2 type A's, which from Decker's doubts do not appear to be identical, we have 1504 -20 = 1484, 1462 +20 = 1482 +10 (storage) 1492, so an overlap of 1484 - 1492. Or if the 1504 had also been in storage then 1474-1492.

Some questions for Decker, for which he might hopefully have notes:

1. Folio Numbers:
Which folios contain watermarks? A list of the 25 folio numbers would be ideal.

2. Watermark Identifications:
For each watermarked folio, which Briquet number (if any) does it correspond to?
2a. Is it an identical match, or the closest likeness to be found?

3. Unmatched Watermarks:
Are there watermarks among the 25 that don’t correspond to Briquet entries?

We have lot of information about watermarks! Thanks.

Mikeh wrote:

"When i look at the images at https://memoryofpaper.eu/briquet/BR.php ... 76&lang=fr, they are mostly visibly different from one another. BR 15376, for example, is quite different from Decker's BR 15375. The only one like it is 15374, which seems just a bigger version of 15375".

And later Mikeh wrote:

"Thanks very much for posting all the snakes on crosses with bull head. I can now see that 15375 is different from the rest, including 15374. 15375 is the one that Decker matched to the manuscript".

Yesterday I was thinking that we don't know exactly what the watermarks in the manuscript that Decker studied are like. However, I'm reading Mikeh now and I think that perhaps Decker specifically mentioned certain watermarks (with location, date, and catalog code) because those watermarks were identical to those in the manuscript. Possibly, Decker saw similar watermarks in the catalog but didn't mention them because they weren't identical to those in the manuscript. If this is true, then we have precise knowledge about the manuscript's watermarks. It would be good to confirm this is true. I previously thought that Decker simply mentioned a few similar watermarks, but possibly he studied all the watermarks in the catalog in detail and mentioned the ones that were identical to those in the manuscript. I think this is Mikeh's view of Decker's study. It would be interesting to confirm if Decker wrote "likeness" to speak about identical watermarks (very more similar than other similar watermarks).

***********

About the supposition of 20 years for the same watermark, Mikeh published an interesting link.

Mikeh post:
viewtopic.php?p=27744&sid=d8ffa5bbfceb3 ... e5f#p27744

The link about watermarks that Mikeh published:
https://cool.culturalheritage.org/coola ... 01-18.html

I am confussed about the XV century and the year 1820. Mikeh speak about that but I continue a few confused. The author of that text mentions 20 years for each watermark, but I don't think he's referring to the 15th century. We're interested in knowing how long a filigree paper mold lasted between 1462 and 1515. I put here a big part of this text:

"The basis of the study of watermarks is that at a given period of time a specific paper mill would have on hand a limited number of papermaking molds, and these molds had a finite useful life. The practice in European mills was to have a pair of molds for each size of paper produced. In the papermaking work rhythm, the vatman immersed one mold in the vat while the coucher, his partner, couched the previously formed sheet off the other mold onto felts. Each mold generally had attached to it a bent-wire mark serving to indicate the paper's origin, size, or quality. Often additional countermarks were also attached to the mold. Each of these handmade wire marks varied slightly and produced a distinctive watermark recognizable by slight variations in the mark's shape, size, placement, and points of attachment to the mold surface, as well as by the spacing of the chain lines and laid lines. So there will be two recognizable "twin" watermarks for each pair of molds.18 In watermarks of the 15th through 17th centuries, the sewing dots are often very distinct white spots along its outlines, because the wire used to attach it was quite thick. In watermarks of the 18th century much finer wire attaches the mark and sewing dots become almost imperceptible.
In producing common paper sizes, a mill would use that size pair of molds frequently, causing wear and damage to the wire mark and mold. Common-sized paper molds are estimated to last about two years, while a mold for a less common paper, such as very large formats, could last for many years. For example, one German mill about 1820 produced its largest art paper format once every two years in quantities of 50 reams.16 Such a large mold could conceivably have a useful life of 20 years.
Accuracy in dating watermarks must be based on matching sheets of paper produced by the very same mold. The watermark to be identified must match exactly a published watermark or other mark for comparison. As well as identical size and shape, both marks must have identical placement relative to the chain lines".

Then, what is the period to each watermark in the XV century? I dont know.

*******

Steve wrote:
"Thanks for clarifying that it is one ms. I wasn't clear as to whether it was one ms. or a bound compilation of several (with annotations by a same hand, presumably the compiler)"

I suppose those words are good for differentiating something we've talked about previously. A bound compilation can contain texts written over a long period (several years or even more than 10 years). However, a manuscript is almost certainly created in a short time. I gave the example of taking a month to write a manuscript or make a copy. I suppose it can take more than a month, but generally less than a year.

*******

Steve wrote something more in the same post:
"Decker seems unclear as to whether the letter A type watermark is most similar to that of 1503 or that of 1515".

When I think that Decker was very precise in mentioning specific watermarks, then I imagine that those two watermarks (similar but different) exist on different leaves of the manuscript (both do). However, Steve says that Decker saw a watermark similar to those two (1503 and 1515). If Decker was not very precise, then perhaps the manuscript watermark would not be identical to either of those two. Ultimately, there are at least three ways to interpret the two watermarks mentioned by Decker.

Perhaps Steve is right in his interpretation, as he makes a detailed study, observing that a line could be interpreted as a fold.

I would like to know what Decker's criteria was. It would be very helpful if Decker could expand on the information about his study and his criteria when mentioning specific watermarks. But Steve do some interesting observations. I explain that now:

Decker mentioned two different duckbill watermarks. Therefore, they were likely on different leaves of the manuscript. On the other hand, Decker uses the conjunction "or" when mentioning the A watermark for two dates (1503, 1515). Steve interprets this to mean: one of those two watermarks is in the manuscript. Ultimately, Steve's interpretations may be correct. I'll have to take them into account and correct my summary. I don't know if there are similar questions or errors in other watermarks in my summary of Decker's article. Decker mentions several star watermarks on scales (or just one scale?) and several bull's-head scales, including variations. Steve, does this mean the manuscript has different watermarks for star scales and different bull's-head scales? What do you think about it. Decker dont say "or". Thank you.

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

I delete "1475 (?)" becouse Decker did not wrote this date that I added recently becouse Steve found it. I see that Steve last post is edited and more long that yesterday morning. I agree with his reflexions and answers to Decker.


*******

A few weeks ago, I spoke with an elderly priest in a mountain village in Spain. He told me that some priests retire, while others continue to offer Masses into old age. Afterward, I asked him a question related to our research. He told me that priests wrote initially their sermons to proclaim in front of the parishioners and later they published them. This custom may be ancient, but we don't know if it was so ancient than 15th century. I was surprised to discover that the sermon could have been written down before it was first proclaimed. This is a possibility we can consider. In previous discussions, we thought that sermons were recited orally and then written down. This is logical and possible. I imagine that this could have been common in the 15th century. However, it could also happen that a priest writes down a sermon while he is creating and thinking about it before reciting it in public. I think both options are possible. I guess sometimes they did it one way and other times they did it another way.

Magic Moon: About whether sermons were written first, then delivered orally, or the reverse, the problem is that the priest probably wouldn't have delivered the sermon in Latin. Would the Latin have come before or after the vernacular delivery? Perhaps your elderly priest has something to say about that.

SteveM: yes, it would be nice to know how similar the watermarks are to the Briquet images for those numbers. Also, I did not mean to imply that we know that the manuscript was done all at once, as opposed to being a compilation of separate manuscripts for each sermon or small group of sermons. If it is the latter, that makes a big difference. Then we need to know where in the ms. these various watermarks appear, to see if they go from earlier to later, from which we could estimate when the 'De Ludo" sermon was done. i have forwarded your questions to Decker.

As I understand Nathaniel, he argues that the marginal note about fluxus being a "new card game" would have been written in the 1460s, since the game had been prohibited in 1470 in Ferrara according to Dummett and was not attested before 1467, according to Depaulis in 2007 (not repeated in 2021). In that case, Nathaniel supposed that the manuscript we have is a copy of a previous original, without the marginal note on the top of the page following the spelling "fuxo", but both are from before 1470. He deduces that it is a copy, if it is from "around 1500", because all the writing looks like it is from the same hand.

I don't know if that last would be true or not. While there can be individual differences, there don't have to be. It was rather standardized.

Another consideration is that the sermon by a different preacher, St. James of the Marches, from which the Steele preacher copied much wording, was said to be from c. 1460, according to Depaulis in 2007 (he does not repeat this in 2021).

Subsequent investigation could not find verification for flusso in 1467 and not earlier. There was even a 15th century source, albeit dubious, that had the game in 1409. Another thing is that the c. 1460 for the other sermon is of dubious value. For one thing, this date comes from a 1978 "critical edition" with lots of mistakes, according to Depaulis in 2007. Another thing is that the book of sermons where Depaulis found the other sermon (the "Sunday sermons", Sermones Domenicales) has on the first page of its autograph, in a comment written in the first-person singular, that he preached from 1420 to 1467. See https://franciscanauthors.rich.ru.nl/index.html, entry for Jacobus de Marchia. If so, that manuscript is from after 1467.

However, that "De Ludo" also appears in another collection of his sermons, with no date attached (the "Easter sermons," Sermones Quadragesimales). A scholar in Viterbo is working on a critical edition of that collection. Andrea Vitali wrote him, and he said that its "De Ludo" (with no mention of trionfi or maybe even card games) was from the 1440s. I haven't mentioned that before, because it doesn't help much unless we know when manuscript copies of it were made that the Steele preacher could have read. Also, there is the question of whether the wording there would have been the same in the relevant parts as in the "Sunday sermons", as the Viterbo scholar says that different manuscripts had different wordings. I wrote him for more specifics, but he hasn't replied.

Another consideration is that if flusso was prohibited in 1470, it was legal again by 1492, or at least tolerated, because the Estense are documented as playing it then, in communications that have been saved (Dummett gives sources, now on the internet, on p. 48 of Game of Tarot). So the writer of the "new card game" note might have thought it was new in the 1490s. Another issue is that "new" is a relative term. If flusso is new, that is in comparison to other card games that are old. When would that have been, in the annotator's mind? We don't know. And why would an annotator not have mentioned flusso after 1470? He surely would have been old enough to remember it from before then.

Those are my problems with Nathaniel's argument.

mikeh wrote: 02 Sep 2025, 14:22

Another consideration is that if flusso was prohibited in 1470, it was legal again by 1492, or at least tolerated, because the Estense are documented as playing it then, in communications that have been saved (Dummett gives sources, now on the internet, on p. 48 of Game of Tarot). So the writer of the "new card game" note might have thought it was new in the 1490s. Another issue is that "new" is a relative term. If flusso is new, that is in comparison to other card games that are old. When would that have been, in the annotator's mind? We don't know. And why would an annotator not have mentioned flusso after 1470? He surely would have been old enough to remember it from before then.

It was banned in Ferrara in 1470 but was still played elsewhere - it is mentioned among the card games in Lorenzo Medici's carnival song The Song of the Sweetmeat Sellers (c1470s?)

There is flush*, which is a cursed* game:
and those who want to come out clean
bid little by little, are prudent and mean;
these days even farmers do the same.

*Flusso (Flow) - As well as meaning a 'flush' at cards, it also means ‘a woman’s monthely flowers'. (Florio) I have chosen 'curse' here in preference to damned - as the word play being made here with coming out clean, unstained or looking 'like a wounded man' is to la maledizione delle mestruazioni which is rendered 'the curse of menstruation' in english. The Tretre site however read it as some sort of 'dirty flow' from the act of sodomy (the song is full of double entendres including references to sodomy during menstruation - the neighbouring 'little pot').

From old post here:

viewtopic.php?p=10442#p10442

The first couple of verses of the Canzona de' Confortini by Lorenzo di Medici c.1475 were included in a performance by "The Toronto Consort":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G2ND5uqGJ0

Ladies! We have candied plums and sweetmeats:
if you want some, then ours are a treat.

Don’t ask how they're made, we won’t show you,
it’s a waste of time, too much trouble to go to;
please don’t waste your time, like so many do,
and eat all alone from little pots,
tiny little pots.

Ladies! We have candied plums and sweetmeats:
if you want some, then ours are a treat.

This art we young men make our living on:
it’s enough we have the finest of buns!
Please don’t wait around to be given one,
you should spend all your time having fun--
and pay us a penny -- your pretty penny.

Ladies! We have candied plums and sweetmeats:
if you want some, then ours are a treat!

edited to add: The TorontoConsort performance of the song is no longer on youtube. There is another performance by different group here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LAn9IHWcQM&t=88s

Mikeh:

How do we know the sermon was initially recited in the vernacular? I assume by "vernacular" you mean the Italian dialect of each region. I'm not with the elderly priest right now, but I take note of that question. I'm not a linguist, but I've heard several times that masses in Spain were offered in Latin until a few decades ago. I wouldn't be surprised if, in the 15th century, Latin was the language used for masses and perhaps also for sermons. Or do you think masses were in Latin and the sermons were in the vernacular? That makes sense, so the population could easily understand the sermons. But in the 15th century, Latin still had some presence, since the transition to regional and modern languages ​​was gradual.

Thanks for sending questions to Decker!

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

Mike says that the sermon "De Ludo" created by James of the Marches was previously published in 1440, in a work titled Easter Sermons. That means that "De Ludo" existed in 1440. Later, a compilation of sermons was published after his retirement in 1467. Thanks, Mikeh. That information is important. It confirms that this sermon existed and was published long before 1467. Therefore, the author of "Sermo Ludo cum Aliis" (found by Steele) could have known "De Ludo" (written by James of the Marches) as early as 1440, if I understand correctly. I'm not in favor of a very early dating for "Ludo cum Aliis," but it's interesting to have information and dating for "De Ludo." I don't think Nathaniel's early dating is the only or necessary option. Nor do I think Mikeh's dating is the only option. Both options seem possible.

If we're looking for evidence, it seems like a good idea to start with the watermarks, to try to date the surviving manuscript. About watermarks, it is perfect the questions that Mikeh send to Decker. Next, we can study the typeface in the writing to confirm whether all the notes are written by the same person, which means that the surviving volume may not be the oldest existing one with the sermon "Ludo cum Aliis."

Mikeh, to reinforce the hypothesis of different hands or writers, perhaps you could indicate or show two especific fragments or notes (in the manuscript) that you think were written by different persons. It would be interesting to compare both kind of writing. You say the writing was very standardized, ok. But perhaps we can detect some differences in the stroke shape of some letters.

Since I initially spoke with Nathaniel, I've had a question. Should we assume that someone copied a manuscript with marginalia and kept the notes (and their strange markings) in the margins? Another hypothesis seems logical to me: if someone copies that manuscript, they could take advantage of it to insert each note in its correct place, within the main text. I can think of an intermediate hypothesis to solve this mystery: perhaps the marginalia were added by someone who copied the original "Ludo cum Aliis" text and then added their comments, using the same handwriting they had used to copy the original author's text. This is one hypothesis among others. Perhaps the author himself made that copy after producing a supposedly original manuscript that is now lost.

For this matter, I consider it useful to find out the origin of the word "aliter" because perhaps this way we understand the logic of writing five different games in the lower margin. Was that what the original author did? I suppose it was an alternative proposed as an update, with games that were in fashion years after the main text was written. This could be better understood if we find out the origin of the word "aliter" written by Robert Steele, where the manuscript has a sign or letter similar to ".i." (note at the bottom of a sheet).

Andrea Vitali, in an essay on Bernardino's sermons on games, says that he delivered them in the vernacular and that later they were put into Latin in manuscripts for circulation. It makes sense that the Steele preacher's sermons would have been the same. Only cultured persons could understand oral Latin.

Magic Moon wrote,

Mike says that the sermon "De Ludo" created by James of the Marches was previously published in 1440, in a work titled Easter Sermons. That means that "De Ludo" existed in 1440. Later, a compilation of sermons was published after his retirement in 1467.

What I said was that a professor in Viterbo wrote Andrea that the sermon by James was delivered in the 1440s, that is, 1440-1449. I didn't say when it would have been first published, in the sense of a manuscript that would circulate. Re-reading my correspondence with Andrea, I see that the professor said that the sermon would have circulated in some version (maybe with wording that does not correspond to that in the Steele Sermon) in the 1450s, i.e. 1450-1459. That circulating copy would not have been the Easter Sermons, which have much the same content as the Sunday Sermons. it would have been part of a manuscript that was less comprehensive, only including sermons done by the 1450s. If so, the earliest that the Steele preacher could have written the Latin version would have been 1450. Since the Steele preacher's inspiration was St. James' sermon, the same would have been true for the oral version. It is not necessary to debate which was first. I want to emphasize that I am not saying that the Steele Sermon is from 1450. It could have been decades later, after 1467. A circulating manuscript version would have been after that. It would have been no later than whatever is indicated by the watermarks on the version at Vanderbilt.

Steve: I don't think we can assume that the "new card game" annotator of the Steele sermon, if in the 1490s in the Ferrara area, was familiar with games played in Florence in an earlier decade or with Lorenzo's carnival songs, which the Franciscans of the preacher's ilk would not likely have circulated.

mikeh wrote: 03 Sep 2025, 02:06 Steve: I don't think we can assume that the "new card game" annotator of the Steele sermon, if in the 1490s in the Ferrara area, was familiar with games played in Florence in an earlier decade or with Lorenzo's carnival songs, which the Franciscans of the preacher's ilk would not likely have circulated.

We know from the Ferrara 1470 prohibition that the game was already known there by the late 1460s. Lorenzo’s song shows that it was also known in 1470s Florence. Given its presence in both Ferrara and Florence in the 1470s, it is reasonable to infer its circulation along the Po Valley corridor toward Venice. The words “recently invented” (noviter inventus) might refer not to the game’s absolute invention, but to its local arrival in this corridor (or whatever location our annotator is in). Though ‘new’ in Ferrara in the late 1460s, it would have been equally “new” in any location it reached thereafter—or even before, depending on its origins.

The list of Trumps follows the B-Type pattern, but it differs in both order and nomenclature from the sequences otherwise documented in Ferrara or Venice. This could indicate an earlier version, as Nathaniel suggests, or alternatively a hybrid variant that existed in towns along the Po Valley corridor, between Venice and Ferrara or surrounding areas, extending as far as Trento potentially.

Franciscans of our preachers’ ilk may not have circulated carnival songs,* but they did transmit the names of games they moralized and word-played upon. For example, Crico would be better called cruco (bread) because it puts the children's bread at stake etc.

SteveM

*Though carnival songs were no doubt targets for any preachers ire, especially the likes of Medici's song of the sweetmeat sellers which included references to their favourite topics of gaming and sodomy and other sexual acts. After Medici's death Savanarola organised the boys of Florence to sing songs written by himself and his followers (such as the Crazy/Fool for Christ verses I have previously posted in other threads).

Well, I don't deny any of what you say. Steve. It is possible that the Franciscan who wrote the "fluxus new card game" note knew about the game being played in Florence. It is also reasonably possible that he didn't, as I think you imply when you say it was "new" whenever it reached that particular area, of which it is hard to say. If it was prohibited in Ferrara in 1470, it might not have reached the preacher's area until the 1490s, when it was allowed again. Or again, he didn't know that it had been there before, then suppressed. How long it would be considered "new" we also don't know. The facts are consistent with 1440-1490 for the sermon and 1450-1510 for the "fluxus new card game" note. I can't see a basis for anything else, at this point. I don't see how the words used for the various triumph cards can fine-tune the dating any further. But before 1460, there is the issue of the 70-card triumph decks of Ferrara 1457. Either they are decks with 12 cards per regular suit, shortened by 2, or 14 cards in the trump suit, shortened by 10 (to play a particular game). Or else they suggest that the sermon is later than 1457.

SteveM wrote,

For example, Crico would be better called cruco (bread) because it puts the children's bread at stake etc.

I don't know that song. Say more.