Raoul de Presles 1375

Huck

Raoul de Presles stands for a riddle about a picture, which was suspected to be very old.

***************************

Raoul de Presles is noted at Kaplan I, p. 32. Kaplan gives the explanation, that the relevant picture uses costumes relevant to the time of Charles VI and not to the time of the early 1370's. Also it's stated, that the translation was made 1371-75.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raoul_de_Presles

Raoul_de_Presles_presents_his_translation_to_Charles_V_of_France.jpg


Raoul de Presles presents a book to French king Charles V.

Following note was captured at
Origine des cartes à jouer: recherches nouvelles sur les naibis, les tarots ... By Romain Merlin
http://books.google.com/books?id=rq_QiRjNutQC&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false

books


I found the connected article in magasin pittoresque:

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k31419b.image.f135.langFR

... with the picture:

merlin-pittoresque.jpg


****************

Ross Caldwell was so energetic to find the real picture. It's from late 15th century, and not, as earlier suspected, much earlier:

bmnfr181f285vdet.jpg


More info
http://www.google.de/search?q=Raoul...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
 

Ross G Caldwell

Thanks for posting that Huck.

Despite being late, I wish the resolution available were high enough to see what looks like a court card being played by the lady on the right.

It looks like this picture of card-players might still be the only known image from the 14th century:

roymeladius1.jpg
 

Moonbow

Ross G Caldwell said:
Thanks for posting that Huck.

Despite being late, I wish the resolution available were high enough to see what looks like a court card being played by the lady on the right.

Yes thanks Huck.

And the card laid on the table by the lady on the left also. Do you have a guess as to what that is Ross/Huck? They could even be the black and red opposites of the same card. Do you know what card games were played at the time and place?
 

Huck

Evie said:
Yes thanks Huck.

And the card laid on the table by the lady on the left also. Do you have a guess as to what that is Ross/Huck? They could even be the black and red opposites of the same card. Do you know what card games were played at the time and place?

I see, that each player seems to have 3 cards, and 3 others appear on the table.
But there's just the freedom of art. To paint more cards would have been difficult. Anyway, as it is from late 15th century and not "sooo early", it has a lot other contemporary pictures and isn't so important. More important is the condition, that it doesn't bother the research situation of 14th century anymore ... :)
 

Moonbow

I thought it was three cards too Huck, but why would that not be significant when the artist is being specific with costume, food, decor. Would it really have been too much confusion to paint the right amount of cards, even if the detail couldn't be accurately portrayed?
 

Huck

Evie said:
I thought it was three cards too Huck, but why would that not be significant when the artist is being specific with costume, food, decor. Would it really have been too much confusion to paint the right amount of cards, even if the detail couldn't be accurately portrayed?

If I think it's "accurately" painted, I've to assume, they play a game with 12 cards, as I see no pack (that would be strange). Also I remember game descriptions with 3 or 5 cards for each player, but I can't remember game descriptions with 4 cards for each player (so that's also strange).

I think, I better assume "freedom of art" as reason for the composition. It's a miniature, it's likely in the original much smaller than the enlargement of Ross. That's a practical problem for small details.

bmnf285v.jpg
 

Moonbow

Huck said:
If I think it's "accurately" painted, I've to assume, they play a game with 12 cards, as I see no pack (that would be strange). Also I remember game descriptions with 3 or 5 cards for each player, but I can't remember game descriptions with 4 cards for each player (so that's also strange).

I think, I better assume "freedom of art" as reason for the composition. It's a miniature, it's likely in the original much smaller than the enlargement of Ross. That's a practical problem for small details.

Thanks for the explanation Huck, so when I asked in my previous post if you knew of corresponding card games that this image would fit it seems that there isn't one and this is artistic license.

It also makes more sense to see the image in scale, and shows the skill of the painter and difficulty in showing any more detail within the cards. Still, it would be so nice to know.