Dummett on Viti's rules

#1
I have been looking at a translation of Pier Antonio Viti's rules and there is one puzzling problem that I have hit regarding the third part of the game.

The original from http://trionfi.com/0/h/03/:
E cum le ritenute carte in mano farassi un altro gioco in tal modo. Ciascuno guarderà le carte sue, e chi più de dardi, o vero de vasi, si troverà avere, vincerà colui che avrà meno; e chi meno d'ochi, o vero di flagelli, si ritrovarà in mano, vincerà quello che è di più fornito. E il vincitore dimandarà al victo, per premio, una obedienza a quello che egli, per una sola fiata, è per domandarli. Et in questo, quello che vince comanda quello che li pare a colui che perde, astrengendolo sotto il già dicto sacremento ad obedirlo.
A translation from https://web.archive.org/web/20170101000 ... Third_Game:
With the cards that the players have won, another game will be played in the following way. Everyone will count its cards, and who has more of darts, or of vases, will win over those who have less; and who has less of eyes, or of whips, will win who have more cards of these suits. And the winner will ask to the loser, for prize, an obedience that, for a single time, he has the right to ask them. And in this, he who wins commands he who loses, who must obey in accord to the above mentioned oath.
Dummett's interpretation of the rules in Game of Tarot page 422:
Using the cards they have won in tricks, each player reckons up points as follows: he counts one positive point for each card he has in the suits of Arrows and Vases, and one negative point for each card in the suits of Eyes and Whips; presumably trumps do not count either way. When the points have been thus reckoned, each player may demand from any other who has a lower score that he hand over to him any card of the demander's choice. Presumably it is meant that one card is to be surrendered for each point of difference in the scores, and presumably also, if a player asks for a card which the other does not have, he cannot try again.
The Tarotpedia translation suggests the loser has to do what the winner wants as in a party game. Dummett's interpretation involves an exchange of cards from those with a lower score to their higher scoring players, the mechanics of which seem complex. Who will get first pickings? Who will have to surrender first? Is Dummett completely off with his translation?

Re: Dummett on Viti's rules

#3
Marco's fairly literal translation seems the more correct to me --
Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.
T. S. Eliot

Re: Dummett on Viti's rules

#4
One more difference between Marco and Dummett regarding part 2:

Original:
De' Trionfi veramente il più numero, ne li brevi da l'uno de' canti signato, è vincitore. E quello de' giocatori che vincerà, tanti giochi quanti vincerà, tanti scuti potrà dimandare a chi egli vorà di coloro che nel circolo sono in questo gioco: prestando prima sacramento cum quelle due carte di sonetti, che in mezo lo scanno si ritrovaranno. E questo facto, bisogna che ognuno ritenghi le carte in mano de li giochi che serano per lui vinti, e quello che alcuno gioco, per caso, non averà vinto, più inanzi non giocarà.
Marco:
And the winner, will ask to the other players to pay as many “scudi” as the hands he has won: taking an oath at the beginning on the two cards with sonnets that are placed in the middle of the table. It is necessary that everyone keeps the cards of the hands he has won.
Dummett:
At the end of the play, each player is paid by every other player who has won fewer tricks than he has as many scuti as the difference in the number of tricks they have won.
In Marco's translation only one winner gets paid and it is simply the number of tricks he took. For Dummett, the payment is more complex.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ross G. R. Caldwell and 12 guests

cron