Hi Marcei, it´s certain what you say on the invested thumb, and had not thought on the detail that are no spots in the zone but it seems a perfect cut… I am in agreement with you say, however, is this wand a penis for you?
Saludos!
Re: Noblet’s batelleur’s Wand
32Hi Lamort,
This is the 3rd time I have begun a reply, for I keep losing them when I leave the page to reference something.
In answer to your question: When I first saw this card some years ago, not expecting anything unusual, I was horrified to see that it did, indeed, appear that he was holding a penis, and was further perplexed by the missing fingers. Again, I do not believe this is accidental. It seems to me that, made for a less literate public, the old cards speak a visual language we cannot fully appreciate. Much information is hidden in even minute details, and I would not characterize these anomalies as minutia.
Having said all this, it is entirely possible that you may have information about the printing process that I lack. If you can explain how such an omission might occur so neatly, please don't hesitate to do so.
My best,
Marcei
This is the 3rd time I have begun a reply, for I keep losing them when I leave the page to reference something.
In answer to your question: When I first saw this card some years ago, not expecting anything unusual, I was horrified to see that it did, indeed, appear that he was holding a penis, and was further perplexed by the missing fingers. Again, I do not believe this is accidental. It seems to me that, made for a less literate public, the old cards speak a visual language we cannot fully appreciate. Much information is hidden in even minute details, and I would not characterize these anomalies as minutia.
Having said all this, it is entirely possible that you may have information about the printing process that I lack. If you can explain how such an omission might occur so neatly, please don't hesitate to do so.
My best,
Marcei
Re: Noblet’s batelleur’s Wand
33Hi Yves,
In a recent post discussing the reversed wand-hand of the Batelleur, I wrote:
“I have puzzled over the Vieville hand and wondered if this was a way some card makers chose to indicate the ‘backhanded’ operations of someone who is being deceptive.”
The English adjective “backhanded” means indirect or devious. I am curious as to whether this same adjective exists in French so that the reversed hand might be a visual metaphor for “slight-of-hand.”
Best,
Marcei
In a recent post discussing the reversed wand-hand of the Batelleur, I wrote:
“I have puzzled over the Vieville hand and wondered if this was a way some card makers chose to indicate the ‘backhanded’ operations of someone who is being deceptive.”
The English adjective “backhanded” means indirect or devious. I am curious as to whether this same adjective exists in French so that the reversed hand might be a visual metaphor for “slight-of-hand.”
Best,
Marcei
Re: Noblet’s batelleur’s Wand
34Hi Marcel,
I agree with you on this penis issue...I think it is indeed too clean of a break, even though I am not well educated on the woodblock printing process, I still fail to understand how a break could be so perfect in its lines...
I too see his thumb is on the wrong side of his hand.
And what's more, this is the deck that has Le Mat's genitals fully exposed, so why would another overt penis in this deck be such a surprise?
I agree with you on this penis issue...I think it is indeed too clean of a break, even though I am not well educated on the woodblock printing process, I still fail to understand how a break could be so perfect in its lines...
I too see his thumb is on the wrong side of his hand.
And what's more, this is the deck that has Le Mat's genitals fully exposed, so why would another overt penis in this deck be such a surprise?
"...he wanted to illustrate with his figures many Moral teachings, and under some difficulty, to bite into bad and dangerous customs, & show how today many Actions are done without goodness and honesty, and are accomplished in ways that are contrary to duty and rightfulness."
Re: Noblet’s batelleur’s Wand
35Hi Prudence,
Yes, perhaps Jean Noblet enjoyed being a bit crude or provocative.—Marcei
Yes, perhaps Jean Noblet enjoyed being a bit crude or provocative.—Marcei
Re: Noblet’s batelleur’s Wand
36Hi compagnions
Although its truth that the genital organs in this deck are not any surprise, it is that following with the graphical style it does not seem to be a penis, I see similar it the end of a wand (like Vieville)… By the way, I must say that I agree Prudence says, the zone is seen very clean to be an error...
Cheers!
Although its truth that the genital organs in this deck are not any surprise, it is that following with the graphical style it does not seem to be a penis, I see similar it the end of a wand (like Vieville)… By the way, I must say that I agree Prudence says, the zone is seen very clean to be an error...
Cheers!
Re: Noblet’s batelleur’s Wand
37Because the penis on the fool is hanging between his legs, and the "penis" on the Bateleur is severed in his hand. The first doesn't need any esoteric explanation, everyone understands why a penis would be between the legs of a man whose pants have fallen down. In addition, the penis further explains the cards, again without the need for esoteric, hidden, or double meanings.. because the animal reaching at the fools genitals makes visual sense for the scene. It Is funny, and there is some historical precedent for it in the exposed genitals on at least one early Italy deck. The dog napping at the fool is also common iconography. The bateleur with a penis in his hand? not so much. The only explanation is to create "hidden", double, or esoteric explanations.prudence wrote:Hi Marcel,
I agree with you on this penis issue...I think it is indeed too clean of a break, even though I am not well educated on the woodblock printing process, I still fail to understand how a break could be so perfect in its lines...
I too see his thumb is on the wrong side of his hand.
And what's more, this is the deck that has Le Mat's genitals fully exposed, so why would another overt penis in this deck be such a surprise?
Something is wrong with the bateleur's hand. Heri has turned it around entirely and puts a horn in it. I don't think it is just a break in the block, because of the line that connects the cut off part of the hand, but there are fingers missing, and considering that virtually every other image of the bateleur has a wand in his hand, and considering that we can, imagine how the wand could be in his hand, I have to imagine that it makes more sense to assume it is a bateleur with a wand in his hand than to think there is any reason why this card maker would purposefully put a penis in the hand of the bateleur.
If we start looking for hidden meanings in the cards, it's an endless door of mother's arms, popess penises, and fish tails. I think that generally the iconography in these decks tends to be rather straightforward, and I really have to ask why on earth a Popess would have a penis on her collar, and why a magician would have a penis in his hand???
Considering the rarity of the image, (unless we have some other examples of bateleurs holding a severed penis in their hands??
), I have to think, when also including the missing fingers and the obvious confusion on other decks related to the Noblet, that "something is wrong". Why? 
I don't know. 
Why wasn't' it fixed? Laziness? I don't know. I find the penis on the fool far more interesting because it is clearly, undoubtably, hysterically evident that it was intentional. But I guess because it DOES make sense that most people don't find it interesting to talk about and would rather wonder why the magician is holding a severed penis where his magic wand out to be? 
Re: Noblet’s batelleur’s Wand
38Let's have a closer look at the detail of that hand-and-'wand' as we discuss it...
Personally, I consider that the woodblock was damaged.
Yet, even as I write this (and have written it many times before in various context), the precision of the lines of the drawing do not indicate a breakage, but instead the opposite: a careful drawing of the depiction we have as intended.
If it was simply a 'break', the wand's top part is unlikely to have that diagonal section completing the drawing ever so neatly. So perhaps it was indeed intended... but if so, the problem remains as to what reason(s) the carver may have had to complete the carving as such, if indeed the carving was so made. And for that, though I have heard and seen various plausible reasons, they remain (for myself at any rate) unconvincing.
That the Noblet has a penis on the Fou, the Devil and on Le Pendu only shows that he does not hesitate to show bodily parts when they are exposed. But this is, as mentioned also by Robert, something quite different.
The 'best' explanation I can come up with is that the original woodblock did indeed have the whole wand and hand, that this broke (either at the hands of the original woodcarver or a little later) and that it was 'fixed' as best possible given a chunk of wood out of that small section of a much larger panel that is likely to have included numerous cards (as woodblocks generally had).
Is it, even now, a penis? Personally, I don't think it's totally obvious that it is: it may or may not be. It could, after all, be indeed a prestidigitator's partial wand, without considering it penile.
If we compare this 'wand' to the three other penises on the Noblet, they certainly do not have the same detail (not, of course, that this supports that it is not intended as a penis - but rather that if there was consistency of detail, it would add to the 'evidence' for intended penis).
The Pendu's (180°rotated), Devil's, and Fou's penises follow:
Those three have far more 'consistency' than the wand in the Bateleur... what to make of all that? I remain open, whilst at the same time remaining of the thought that the woodblock of the Bateleur is as is due to damage, until some evidence to the contrary seems to me stronger than currently presented.
Personally, I consider that the woodblock was damaged.
Yet, even as I write this (and have written it many times before in various context), the precision of the lines of the drawing do not indicate a breakage, but instead the opposite: a careful drawing of the depiction we have as intended.
If it was simply a 'break', the wand's top part is unlikely to have that diagonal section completing the drawing ever so neatly. So perhaps it was indeed intended... but if so, the problem remains as to what reason(s) the carver may have had to complete the carving as such, if indeed the carving was so made. And for that, though I have heard and seen various plausible reasons, they remain (for myself at any rate) unconvincing.
That the Noblet has a penis on the Fou, the Devil and on Le Pendu only shows that he does not hesitate to show bodily parts when they are exposed. But this is, as mentioned also by Robert, something quite different.
The 'best' explanation I can come up with is that the original woodblock did indeed have the whole wand and hand, that this broke (either at the hands of the original woodcarver or a little later) and that it was 'fixed' as best possible given a chunk of wood out of that small section of a much larger panel that is likely to have included numerous cards (as woodblocks generally had).
Is it, even now, a penis? Personally, I don't think it's totally obvious that it is: it may or may not be. It could, after all, be indeed a prestidigitator's partial wand, without considering it penile.
If we compare this 'wand' to the three other penises on the Noblet, they certainly do not have the same detail (not, of course, that this supports that it is not intended as a penis - but rather that if there was consistency of detail, it would add to the 'evidence' for intended penis).
The Pendu's (180°rotated), Devil's, and Fou's penises follow:
Those three have far more 'consistency' than the wand in the Bateleur... what to make of all that? I remain open, whilst at the same time remaining of the thought that the woodblock of the Bateleur is as is due to damage, until some evidence to the contrary seems to me stronger than currently presented.
Re: La verge sans veine (the unlucky penis)
39Intended or not, it highlights a simple play on words in french that exists whether highlighted as in the case of the noblet or not, la baguette magique (a pseudonym for the penis) of a Bateleur/Juggler was called la verge de jacob, and verge is a synonym for penis in French. Also, the cup and ball player, or tricksters who were said to have originated in Toledo, were said to be able to turn a cock into a hen. The bateleur was also a juggler of words too, a master of cheeky eloquence:
http://www.allowe.com/OtherSites/AL%20I ... ingMag.htm
Perhaps Noblet was happy to let the damage go, or extenuate it, amused by the play on words.
"In polite biological and medical circles, the male sexual organ is called « un verge ». Apart from being the anatomical word for a penis, « un verge » is also a magic wand, a stick or a rod."
http://www.allowe.com/OtherSites/AL%20I ... ingMag.htm
Perhaps Noblet was happy to let the damage go, or extenuate it, amused by the play on words.
"In polite biological and medical circles, the male sexual organ is called « un verge ». Apart from being the anatomical word for a penis, « un verge » is also a magic wand, a stick or a rod."
Re: La verge sans veine (the unlucky penis)
40Well said, Steve!SteveM wrote:Perhaps Noblet was happy to let the damage go, or extenuate it, amused by the play on words.