If there is for me an element of this card that really disconcert,that is the three legged table it shows.
Here is the original Jean Noblet :
And here the Flornoy version :
1-Is clear that the table ends somewhere with the others two legs.
So what is the reason for the third leg of the right ?
Defying all rules of perspective...
2-If there is not two other legs at the end of the table :
Why can not one see the fourth leg on the card ?
3-To be clear here:(Aside my poor english,surely the worst here ... )
I find no sense in terms of depiction of a table,in this third leg.
Going farther...
If I suppose the absence of this third leg,let me know naturally that surely there are at the end of the table the others two legs.
Again: If not why can not one see the fourth leg on the card ?
4-I am convinced that is a symbolic depiction of a table.
Otherwise just for me the table cannot sustain for itself: Surely will fall.
No ?
Are not two others legs at the end of the table we can not see ?
Ok...
So where is the fourth leg in front of the third that I can not see ?
That leg could surely ensure that the table will not fall.
5-If one study carefully the shape of the table,one can see that is too much more longer than wider.
So the end of the table seems to be at least at the double the third leg at the right is placed...
So my dear friend this table just for me can not sustain for itself.
Again: I can not find the reason of this third leg to be there.
6-Conclusion:
a-This is a symbolic depiction not a real one.
b-The fourth leg that only can sustain the table is the left leg of ours ami LE BATELEVR ...
Why ? / Good question...
That is what I will try to explain.
7-Another detail that sustain for me my supposition is that the right leg of LE BATELEVR is somewhat "fixed" with the leg of the middle,so that reinforce my belief,because this right leg has no purpose for itself,but no less that remark the left as the fourth leg of the table.
That is why is fixed to the middle leg of the table.
8-So we have four legs : 3 of the table + 1 of LE BATELEVR
Precisely the left of him the attracting side of him.
Is not he working with the four elements ?
* So is the best leg to be connected to earth to do his work...
And curiously is the fourth leg of the table !
Because he is finishing the work on the table with his body as an agent,and that is why he is what he is.
He is the fourth element or best the fifth linked with the fourth.
9-On the other side we have a 2 + 3 pattern:
So the two blue legs of LE BATELEVR + the three flesh-skin-earth coloured legs of the table.
* Nothing in contradiction here,all walks to the same iconography intention just for me.
If not then one must ask oneself why precisely his right leg is tied or fixed to the second leg of the table.