Tarot History Forum

Thanks, Nathaniel.

So you're saying that the surviving sermon has the text and marginal notes written by the same person at the same time. I sometimes misspell a word and then correct it. For this reason, I find it hard to understand how a spelling correction is evidence that the correction wasn't made by the person who wrote the corrected text. However, I imagine that perhaps some notes refer to the author in the third person. That would be good evidence that some notes were made by someone else. I think perhaps the same person could have written the text and the note about Fuxo, and the note that corrects the note. Perhaps if it had been the same person, they wouldn't have added a second note but would have added an "l" to the word "Fuxo" to correct it?

By the way, it seems you have the privilege of seeing photographs of several pages of the sermon. Do you know on which folio it begins and which folio it ends? I don't know if folio 208 is the list of triumphs or the beginning of the sermon on the games.

********

You say the Budapest-Met Tarot was printed after approximately 1535. When I read your article, I'll look for an explanation for the dating. I don't have the computer tools to buy anything online.

Thanks!

Magic Moon wrote: 31 May 2025, 02:12 By the way, it seems you have the privilege of seeing photographs of several pages of the sermon. Do you know on which folio it begins and which folio it ends? I don't know if folio 208 is the list of triumphs or the beginning of the sermon on the games.

The part of the manuscript that I have seen is only ten pages, images of which were put online in 2020 by the library at Vanderbilt University, where the manuscript is now held (since 2019). The library catalogue webpage for the manuscript (https://catalog.library.vanderbilt.edu/ ... 6168903276) no longer contains the link to the webpage where the images can be downloaded, but that webpage is still accessible at this time and it is still possible to download the images of the ten pages from it:
https://vanderbilt.app.box.com/s/oa6ku7 ... ection=ASC

The images numbered 12 to 17 are from the sermon. But they do not include the start of the sermon (it could perhaps be on folio 206r, or 205 somewhere?) and I am not entirely sure if they include the end of it either: image 17 shows what is probably the start of the next sermon, but it is still about games, so maybe it was just another part of the same sermon; it's hard to be sure without seeing the rest of the manuscript.

The part of the text I was talking about (with Fuxo etc. in the margins) can be seen on images 15 and 16. The list of trumps is also on image 16 (folio 208v).

Correction: according to a description written by Thierry Depaulis, which is provided in the library's description of the manuscript, the sermon goes from folio 205r to 209r (so the section that looks like the start of the next sermon is indeed the start of the next sermon):
https://collections.library.vanderbilt. ... cts/261035

This is an English translation (probably done by Thierry himself) of the French text on page 162 of Tarots Enluminés (2021).

Does it go on (after El Mato) to mention something about Padua & further on Lombard ?

i padua o[mn]ia ludentis ? Generally it is Padova in Italian, Padoa in Venetian (possibly the source for the english) or Patavia in Latin - but I think there were variations such as Padua or Padva?

i [ire] ? Go [or begone?] Padua, all things of the gamester/player - or player of all things? Or, Go, Padua [home] of all / every playthings/game?
Or, in context of a sermon, could it be read as a purging = “Go [from] Padua, all things of the gamester! [every plaything]”


Later there is something about 'a Lombard boy' ? [puer lombard]

Also, we have mention of Thoth [theuto].

"Multotiens fa [fuit?] obligatus dyabolus [Ego?] theuto. perhaps not ego, but an abbreviation of something "Exo" then a superscriptive 'im'? Perhaps ex omnium theuto?

"Padua" is both the nominative and ablative form of the word (and vocative)

https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Padua

There we learn that the nom. and voc. forms have a short final "a" - Paduă - while the ablative has a long "a" - Paduā.

In our passage it can only be the ablative, since the preposition "in" governs it. "At Padua" or, more colloquially in English, "in Padua".

When Thierry got Vanderbilt to scan and put these texts online five years ago, we tried to work out the rest of the passage that Steele hadn't transcribed. I think we got most of the abbreviations resolved correctly, but the "no[abbreviation squiggle over "o"]" in line five remains difficult for me. As does the meaning of the sign ·/, which the scribe uses between the words "comburere" and "incurrere", as well as just above, before the marginal note "·/ nisi velint". Steele has interpreted this last, apparently, as a parenthetical remark, but that doesn't seem to make sense here: "Et omnes debent illos comburere ·/ incurrere dei iracundiam."


Here is what we worked out back then and I have tried to finish today:

El mato sive nulla. (in top margin: "·/ nisi velint") Sed dat intelligere quod ludentes ad hunc ludum stulti facti sunt. Et sine dubio peccant mortaliter. Et omnes debent illos comburere incurrere dei iracundiam. Et nos [?] quod ista tria ludorum genera faciunt lusores perdere animam, corpus et substantiam, verso animam multotiens eam obligando dyabolo.
Exemplum Theutonici armigeri in Padua omnia ludentis. Et dyabolus in flumine sicut piscator apparuit ei dixit. Quo vadis? At ille: Quero inquit dyabolum cui dabo animam et corpus pro denariis. Et dedit sex milia ducatorum pro sex annis. Quibus amissis, reversus pro aliis dixit piscator: Ascende in naviculam et dabo. Et ascendit et statim submersus est. Item puer Lombardus pro ludo ductus est ad furcam, dixit: O pueri, hoc patior pro ludo. Item exemplum Lombardi ludentis usque ad brachas nudus remansit et ultimo uxorem etc.

"The Fool, or nothing (unless they wish). In fact it indicates that those playing this game become fools. And without doubt, they sin mortally. And all must burn them, incurring the wrath of God. And we [?] that these three types of games cause players to lose their soul, body, and substance, often binding their soul to the devil many times.
An example: a German squire in Padua, playing everything. And the devil appeared to him in the river like a fisherman and said, ‘Where are you going?’ And he said, ‘I seek the devil, to whom I will give my soul and body for money.’ And he gave him six thousand ducats for six years. When these were lost, he returned, and the fisherman said [to him] in front of others ‘Get into the boat, and I will give you your due ("dare" can also mean "to give over", i.e. "to send to die").’ And he got in and was immediately submerged. Likewise, a Lombard boy, led to the gallows for gaming, said, ‘O boys, I suffer this for gaming.’ Likewise, an example of a Lombard playing until he was left naked up to his arms, and finally [lost] his wife, etc."

Ross Caldwell wrote: 31 May 2025, 18:28

El mato sive nulla. (in top margin: "·/ nisi velint") Sed dat intelligere quod ludentes ad hunc ludum stulti facti sunt. Et sine dubio peccant mortaliter. Et omnes debent illos comburere incurrere dei iracundiam. Et nos [?] quod ista tria ludorum genera faciunt lusores perdere animam, corpus et substantiam, verso animam multotiens eam obligando dyabolo.
Exemplum Theutonici armigeri in Padua omnia ludentis. Et dyabolus in flumine sicut piscator apparuit ei dixit. Quo vadis? At ille: Quero inquit dyabolum cui dabo animam et corpus pro denariis. Et dedit sex milia ducatorum pro sex annis. Quibus amissis, reversus pro aliis dixit piscator: Ascende in naviculam et dabo. Et ascendit et statim submersus est. Item puer Lombardus pro ludo ductus est ad furcam, dixit: O pueri, hoc patior pro ludo. Item exemplum Lombardi ludentis usque ad brachas nudus remansit et ultimo uxorem etc.

Thansk Ross!

I think maybe Et nos [?] is possibly "Et nemo..." ?

Wow, thanks Ross (and Thierry)! Great work.

I've worked out the two things you were confused about—and one of them revealed a mistake I made earlier.

The "no" with the wavy line over it is "nota": "Et nota quod ista tria ludorum genera..." = "And note that these three types of games..."
See p. XXIV of Capelli:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Di ... frontcover

More importantly, that little mark ·/ between "comburere" and "incurrere" is one of several similar marks that the scribe used to indicate where to insert some text that was added in the margin. As you have observed, it also appears in front of "nisi velint" in the margin above. This means that this is where we are supposed to insert "nisi velint"!

Steele made a mistake in putting it after "El mato sive nulla"—the mark after that is simply a colon, with the usual meaning that colons still have today. The "nisi velint" makes a lot more sense between "comburere" and "incurrere":
"everyone must burn those [trionfi] if they do not want to incur the wrath of God."

I can be quite sure of this interpretation because I overlooked one of these marks at the bottom of f. 208r. Steele was right and I was wrong: "sive ala terza ala quarta" does indeed go after Falcinelle because there is one of these little connecting marks above "sive" which matches one after Falcinelle: /·
You can also see another one after Milaneso, which connects to the matching mark above "Vel" in the marginal note to the left: ·/·

Steele must have been confused by the slightly messy way the scribe has written the dot before the stroke before "nisi velint", and by the little speck above that, which is presumably just discoloration of the page or a speck of stray ink.

Nathaniel wrote: 01 Jun 2025, 09:15 The "no" with the wavy line over it is "nota": "Et nota quod ista tria ludorum genera..." = "And note that these three types of games..."
See p. XXIV of Capelli

Thank you. That makes perfect sense. I noted that mark in Cappelli, but he could have added "ta" to his list! Still, I should have thought of "nota" from the context.

More importantly, that little mark ·/ between "comburere" and "incurrere" is one of several similar marks that the scribe used to indicate where to insert some text that was added in the margin. As you have observed, it also appears in front of "nisi velint" in the margin above. This means that this is where we are supposed to insert "nisi velint"!

Steele made a mistake in putting it after "El mato sive nulla"—the mark after that is simply a colon, with the usual meaning that colons still have today. The "nisi velint" makes a lot more sense between "comburere" and "incurrere":
"everyone must burn those [trionfi] if they do not want to incur the wrath of God."

Superb! Thank you very much. Yes, this is what he meant for "nisi velint." I really couldn't get why burning the cards should also incur God's wrath, but as it stood there was no way to force to it mean what it is clear it should mean.

I can be quite sure of this interpretation because I overlooked one of these marks at the bottom of f. 208r. Steele was right and I was wrong: "sive ala terza ala quarta" does indeed go after Falcinelle because there is one of these little connecting marks above "sive" which matches one after Falcinelle: /·
You can also see another one after Milaneso, which connects to the matching mark above "Vel" in the marginal note to the left: ·/·

Steele must have been confused by the slightly messy way the scribe has written the dot before the stroke before "nisi velint", and by the little speck above that, which is presumably just discoloration of the page or a speck of stray ink.

Indeed f. 208r's usages are clear examples. And "nisi velint" a rare mistake from Steele. It is really satisfying to be able to clear up this 125 year-old confusion. Thank you again. And thank you, Steve, for bringing it up and thereby helping us finish the work left incomplete five years ago.

Well, Nathaniel's notice made me look again more closely, and I noted yet another old error that had crept in, and another missing passage to insert.

In the top margin, to the right of "·/ nisi velint", is: "·ǁ· Secundo: perdit lusor corpus suum quia multotiens a dyabolo rapitur et portatur ad infernum. Tertio: perdit substantiam quia de mille unus non efficitur dives sed pro maiori perte efficiuntur pauperes et male finiunt vitam suam."

The sign ·ǁ· in the main text is at line 7, after "dyabolo". In the old transcription, that sentence begins with "verso", which I took over without verifying it. Obviously it is "P°", i.e. "Primo".

So the rectified passage reads:

El mato sie nulla. Sed dat intelligere quod ludentes ad hunc ludum stulti facti sunt. Et sine dubio peccant mortaliter. Et omnes debent illos comburere nisi velint incurrere dei iracundiam. Et nota quod ista tria ludorum genera faciunt lusores perdere animam, corpus et substantiam. Primo: animam multotiens eam obligando dyabolo. Secundo: perdit lusor corpus suum quia multotiens a dyabolo rapitur et portatur ad infernum. Tertio: perdit substantiam quia de mille unus non efficitur dives sed pro maiori perte efficiuntur pauperes et male finiunt vitam suam.
Exemplum Theutonici armigeri in Padua omnia ludentis. Et dyabolus in flumine sicut piscator apparuit ei dixit. Quo vadis? At ille: Quero inquit dyabolum cui dabo animam et corpus pro denariis. Et dedit sex milia ducatorum pro sex annis. Quibus amissis, reversus pro aliis dixit piscator: Ascende in naviculam et dabo. Et ascendit et statim submersus est. Item puer Lombardus pro ludo ductus est ad furcam, dixit: O pueri, hoc patior pro ludo. Item exemplum Lombardi ludentis usque ad brachas nudus remansit et ultimo uxorem etc.

Translation:

"The Fool, or nothing. In fact it indicates that those playing this game become fools. And without doubt, they sin mortally. And all must burn them unless they wish to suffer the wrath of God. And note that these three types of games cause players to lose their soul, body, and substance. First: their soul, often binding it to the devil. Second: the player loses his body because many times he is seized by the devil and carried to hell. Third: he loses his substance because, out of a thousand, not one becomes rich, but for the greater part they become poor and end their life badly.
An example: a German squire in Padua, playing everything. And the devil appeared to him in the river like a fisherman and said, ‘Where are you going?’ And he said, ‘I seek the devil, to whom I will give my soul and body for money.’ And he gave him six thousand ducats for six years. When these were lost, he returned, and the fisherman said [to him] in front of others, ‘Get into the boat, and I will give you your due.’ And he got in and was immediately submerged. Likewise, a Lombard boy, led to the gallows for gaming, said, ‘O boys, I suffer this for gaming.’ Likewise, an example of a Lombard playing until he was left naked up to his arms, and finally [lost] his wife, etc."

Anybody notice anything else we've missed? In the rest of the passage, that I haven't worked on yet, I notice two, one in the middle margin with " ·/" and one in the left margin with the sign ·ǀ· (and a dot on top). But I can't find their places in the text yet.

The one in the middle margin with " ·/" belongs to the next sermon, the text to the right of it. The other symbol "·i·" could perhaps be an abbreviation of "id est"? I haven't tried to read the text in that part yet so I'm not sure. There is a vertical stroke with three dots above it in the left margin next to the block of text at the bottom of the page, but that could be a different thing.