Le sheykh Shams ud-Din Tabrizi joue aux échecs avec un jeune chrétien
Madjalis ul-'Usshaq, Les Séances des amants. Recueil d'anecdotes sur les plus célèbres mystiques de l'Islam rédigées en 1502-1504 par Kamâl ud-Din Gâzurgâhî. Manuscrit sur papier contenant 81 peintures. Copie anonyme datée de 1581 réalisée en Iran (Shirâz) ou, peut-être, en Inde (259 feuillets). Paris, BNF, Manuscrits (suppl. persan 1150 f° 101 v°)
Au folio 101 verso, "le sheykh Shams ud-Din Tabrizi, mystique célèbre mort en 1247 qui eut pour disciple Djalâl ud-Din Rûmî, est représenté en train de jouer aux échecs dans la ville d'Alep avec un jeune chrétien au grand scandale de ses disciples". Outre la forme caractéristique donnée par le peintre aux bonnets que portent le chrétien et ses compagnons, il faut remarquer le soin qu'il a apporté à la représentation du jeu d'échecs et de ses pièces. Il est vrai que le jeu d'échecs a toujours été très en honneur dans le monde iranien et que plusieurs traités en persan sur les échecs sont connus.
Sorry about that. As it happens, although I have A-Level French, I sat the paper twenty-five years ago and although I can still read it a bit, I wouldn't trust my translation abilities if I were you.
I have to say that after BL's ..Ng4 I was all for Bxf7+, after about one second of analysis. A rook is a rook but the compensation looked massive. I have the feeling white should have something for the material.
A rough translation (with some amendments made to that produced by Babelfish, http://babelfish.yahoo.com):
The sheykh Shams ud-DIN Tabrizi plays chess with a young Christian Madjalis ul-' Usshaq, Meetings of the lovers. Collection d' anecdotes on the most famous mystics of Islam written in 1502-1504 by Kamâl ud-DIN Gâzurgâhî. Manuscript on paper containing 81 paintings. Copy anonymous goes back to 1581 realized in Iran (Shirâz) or, perhaps, in India (259 layers). Paris, BNF, Manuscripts (suppl. Persian 1150 f° 101 v°) With folio 101 back, " the sheykh Shams ud-DIN Tabrizi, mystic celebrates dead into 1247 who had as a disciple Djalâl ud-DIN Rûmî, is represented playing chess in the city of Alep with a young Christian with the great scandal of his disciples". In addition to the characteristic form given by the painter to the bonnets which the Christian and his companions wear, it is necessary to notice the care which it brought to the representation of the play of chess and of its parts. It is true that the play of chess always was very honored in the Iranian world and that several treaties in Persian on chess are known.
Oi, you bloggers; this one is about Chess in Art, not Chess in Liverpool. Kindly get a bit of perspective.
The same goes for the picture too; no perspective. The board sits four-square on the picture plane (it should be trapeziform for conventional one point perspective; the figures are of one size (not smaller as you go up/back); and no aerial perspective (blue futher away). Just a single clue: overlap. We see that the figures as the bottom are at the front because they overlap the playing arena. The group of three are ranked away from us using the same device. The artist/calligrapher has taken one small step on the historical road to represent recession on a flat surface.
The composition is almost perfectly balanced around the vertical axis of the board and shrub. The Sheikh and his entourage (in white trimmed turbans) on the left are answered, man for man, by the young Christian's supporters (in variously coloured caps)on the right. Except that at the top the tree/axis shifts to the right to accommodate the text box - yet still the same even handedness: two turbans left of tree, and two caps to the right.
Although the artist gives equal physical weight to the two "sides", psychologically they are so different. The Sheikh's men watch their master and obsequiously hang on every move; the young man's companions are in animated conversation, and a couple even turn away from the game. Are they debating the moves, or weightier matters?
This brings us to the mystery at the heart of the image: why are the Sheikh and the Christian playing the game? What is at stake? Why are the disciples "scandalised" according to the French commentary?
Is this game a metaphor for the clash of ideologies as Spassky/Fischer 1972? Is it a Seventh Seal battle for the young man's life? Perhaps we have the answer from the title of the C16 volume from which it comes: "Les Seances des amants" ("Lovers' trysts", maybe) - if it is not too fanciful: they are playing for the hand of the Sheikh's daughter.
So the artist was also a storyteller, but not a chess player: the red and black pieces are in the wrong orientation. But we'll give him the benefit of the doubt over the absence of black squares. Maybe they weren't invented yet. No need to alert LASTBUR.
12 comments:
This is an informative link, albeit slightly more informative if you can read French.
what does it say ?
It says:
Le sheykh Shams ud-Din Tabrizi joue aux échecs avec un jeune chrétien
Madjalis ul-'Usshaq, Les Séances des amants. Recueil d'anecdotes sur les plus célèbres mystiques de l'Islam rédigées en 1502-1504 par Kamâl ud-Din Gâzurgâhî. Manuscrit sur papier contenant 81 peintures. Copie anonyme datée de 1581 réalisée en Iran (Shirâz) ou, peut-être, en Inde (259 feuillets).
Paris, BNF, Manuscrits (suppl. persan 1150 f° 101 v°)
Au folio 101 verso, "le sheykh Shams ud-Din Tabrizi, mystique célèbre mort en 1247 qui eut pour disciple Djalâl ud-Din Rûmî, est représenté en train de jouer aux échecs dans la ville d'Alep avec un jeune chrétien au grand scandale de ses disciples". Outre la forme caractéristique donnée par le peintre aux bonnets que portent le chrétien et ses compagnons, il faut remarquer le soin qu'il a apporté à la représentation du jeu d'échecs et de ses pièces. Il est vrai que le jeu d'échecs a toujours été très en honneur dans le monde iranien et que plusieurs traités en persan sur les échecs sont connus.
Ho ho ho
Sorry about that. As it happens, although I have A-Level French, I sat the paper twenty-five years ago and although I can still read it a bit, I wouldn't trust my translation abilities if I were you.
Anyone enjoying Horner - B.Lalic. Boggy will probably win but love Jeff Horner's cavalier style.
PG
I have to say that after BL's ..Ng4 I was all for Bxf7+, after about one second of analysis. A rook is a rook but the compensation looked massive. I have the feeling white should have something for the material.
I have the feeling white should have something for the material
A lost game together and a vague sense of embarrassment?
A rough translation (with some amendments made to that produced by Babelfish, http://babelfish.yahoo.com):
The sheykh Shams ud-DIN Tabrizi plays chess with a young Christian Madjalis ul-' Usshaq, Meetings of the lovers. Collection d' anecdotes on the most famous mystics of Islam written in 1502-1504 by Kamâl ud-DIN Gâzurgâhî. Manuscript on paper containing 81 paintings. Copy anonymous goes back to 1581 realized in Iran (Shirâz) or, perhaps, in India (259 layers). Paris, BNF, Manuscripts (suppl. Persian 1150 f° 101 v°) With folio 101 back, " the sheykh Shams ud-DIN Tabrizi, mystic celebrates dead into 1247 who had as a disciple Djalâl ud-DIN Rûmî, is represented playing chess in the city of Alep with a young Christian with the great scandal of his disciples". In addition to the characteristic form given by the painter to the bonnets which the Christian and his companions wear, it is necessary to notice the care which it brought to the representation of the play of chess and of its parts. It is true that the play of chess always was very honored in the Iranian world and that several treaties in Persian on chess are known.
James McDonnell
Oi, you bloggers; this one is about Chess in Art, not Chess in Liverpool. Kindly get a bit of perspective.
The same goes for the picture too; no perspective. The board sits four-square on the picture plane (it should be trapeziform for conventional one point perspective; the figures are of one size (not smaller as you go up/back); and no aerial perspective (blue futher away). Just a single clue: overlap. We see that the figures as the bottom are at the front because they overlap the playing arena. The group of three are ranked away from us using the same device. The artist/calligrapher has taken one small step on the historical road to represent recession on a flat surface.
The composition is almost perfectly balanced around the vertical axis of the board and shrub. The Sheikh and his entourage (in white trimmed turbans) on the left are answered, man for man, by the young Christian's supporters (in variously coloured caps)on the right. Except that at the top the tree/axis shifts to the right to accommodate the text box - yet still the same even handedness: two turbans left of tree, and two caps to the right.
Although the artist gives equal physical weight to the two "sides", psychologically they are so different. The Sheikh's men watch their master and obsequiously hang on every move; the young man's companions are in animated conversation, and a couple even turn away from the game. Are they debating the moves, or weightier matters?
This brings us to the mystery at the heart of the image: why are the Sheikh and the Christian playing the game? What is at stake? Why are the disciples "scandalised" according to the French commentary?
Is this game a metaphor for the clash of ideologies as Spassky/Fischer 1972? Is it a Seventh Seal battle for the young man's life? Perhaps we have the answer from the title of the C16 volume from which it comes: "Les Seances des amants" ("Lovers' trysts", maybe) - if it is not too fanciful: they are playing for the hand of the Sheikh's daughter.
So the artist was also a storyteller, but not a chess player: the red and black pieces are in the wrong orientation. But we'll give him the benefit of the doubt over the absence of black squares. Maybe they weren't invented yet. No need to alert LASTBUR.
Martin S.
...and a final detail to corroborate my theory: each side in the picture has seven men; whoever wins the lady completes their team of eight.
Martin S.
I may have to resign my commission and turn this series over to Martin.
You two should write a book! I think there must be a market for this kind of thing - "Master Pieces" by Gareth Williams seemed pretty successful.
Post a Comment