SteveM wrote:
I wonder if one should stick to a literal translation or for ease of understanding replace the literal with terms such as 'suit(s)' and 'deck' where appropriate? e.g.:
sed Quaternum illud uniforme in suo quaterno duabus admixtis diversis partibus, scilicet altera, quae sit triumphorum 21. postrema unius tantum figurae fatui sub effigie, videtur eo quaternum ternum:
Quaternum = deck of cards; suo quaterno = seed quarters, pip cards, four suits;
The suits of this deck [the tarot] are the same [as an ordinary deck of playing cards], to which are added two other parts, one of which is composed of 21 trumps and the other a single figure portrayed as a fool, thus it is a deck with three parts.
(But then the play he makes on the number four is lost, but may be noted?)
Hello Steve, I have updated the translation of that sentence according to your suggestion. Likely, there are other places were a less literal translation would make the text easier to understand. Of course, I think that when the meaning is unclear, it is better to be literal and try to render the ambiguity. In this case, it is clear that D'Oncieu is speaking of the suits, so I agree that the repetitions of Quaternary can be avoided.
SteveM wrote:
Re: 27 being a quaternary number, I read it in the sense of being a cube number - 1,3, 9, 27 (rather than 4x7-1) as per the pythagorean tetractys you illustated (with the cubes of 2+3). As I mentioned in a previous post I thought it might be connected with this but I hadn't found that page with the illustration so wasn't sure.
In connection with pythagorous we may note that as well as the emphasis on 3 & 4 he also brings in the quintessense, number 5 - as in the 3,4,5 pythagorean triangle? (also 3,4,5 = 12, and the sum of 1-12 = 78).
I agree that according to D'Oncieu 27 is "quaternary" because it is a cube, but I don't understand the last sentence about the 3,4,5 pythagorean triangle.
I have once again changed my mind about the translation of that mysterious sentence: "sed enim & illud obiter occurrit observandum, aequalitatis singulari iudicio eum numerum ut est 78, individuorum, itidem esse in universum aestimatione".
I read in Dummett's "Il Mondo e l'Angelo":
"nella forma originale del gioco dei Tarocchi un giocatore o partito segnava un punto per ogni presa fatta. Nei semi, le carte conv valore di punteggio erano solo le figure - un Re valeva 4 punti, una Regina 3, un Cavallo 2 e un Fante 1. Nella tradizione milanese ... il Mondo ... il Bagatto e il Matto ... valevano 4 punti ciascuno" (p.237)
"i punti ammontano di solito a 78" (p.482)
So in the ancient game of tarot the total number of points in the game was 78 (26 for the tricks, 40 for the court cards, 12 for the World, Bagat and Fool). I think that D'Oncieu is referring to this as the "aequalitatis singulari iudicio": that the total number of cards is the same as the total number of points certainly is not coincidental. So, currently I think the translation could be:
"But indeed also this occurs that must be observed: that number of seventy eight cards, with a singular choice of equality, corresponds to the total number of points".
"aestimatio" means "valuation, estimation of money value; value, price; assessment of damages;"
interpreting it as the number of points seems reasonable to me.