Hi OnePotato!

May I say that you are a remarkably good writer and an accomplished painter (love your avatar) for one who is only 7! (I'm kidding—your bio says you are 7)

You are right, perhaps there were copyists who reproduced details not understanding why they were done that way originally, or details that might have been errors. Incidentally, I, too, think the floating wand you show is interesting. I must say, however, that I never cease to be amazed at the absolutely incredible detail evident in the woodblock designs of the early cards. The even spacing and consistent width of outlines and fine shading lines is just astonishing to me. As a child I did many craft-like things and my father, an artist and designer in his own right, gave me a set of wood carving tools. When I look at those tools even today, I cannot begin to imagine carving such intricate blocks. It is the incredible skill of these craftsmen(probably mostly men) that makes me think that the original artist would not have allowed a mistake to stand. My guess is that he would have cut out a chunk encompassing the error and replaced it with a piece that was flawlessly carved.

From my point of view, as people deeply, deeply interested in this wonderful gift from the past, it would be a mistake to limit ourselves to discussing only the general meaning, historical origin and religious or moral significance of an image. Especially if we consider that in the context of these cards image is language. They were designed for a populace that, though often illiterate, was not unintelligent. A bright person, especially in high society, was frequently called a “wit,” and people made a game of verbal sparring. This being the case, is it not reasonable that the designers of cards used the device of visual double entendres to engage the imagination?

I just like to take a playful approach here which is what I believe the designers would have done. It was never my intention to get under anyone‘s skin, though I seem to have done so. Robert has been suspiciously silent ever since I kidded him about the Priestess/Papesse!

Also, I apologize if much of this was already covered on Aeclectic. I will make a point to try to find the discussion in their archives if, indeed, I have access to it. After I take a moment to respond to Prudence's post, I will try to avoid this topic. I say try because it is still possible that my fingers may get carried away and type before I think. Best regards. —Marcei

Marcei wrote:Hi OnePotato!

May I say that you are a remarkably good writer and an accomplished painter (love your avatar) for one who is only 7!

You are right, perhaps there were copyists who reproduced details not understanding why they were done that way originally, or details that might have been errors. Incidentally, I, too, think the floating wand you show is interesting. I must say, however, that I never cease to be amazed at the absolutely incredible detail evident in the woodblock designs of the early cards. The even spacing and consistent width of outlines and fine shading lines is just astonishing to me. As a child I did many craft-like things and my father, an artist and designer in his own right, gave me a set of wood carving tools. When I look at those tools even today, I cannot begin to imagine carving such intricate blocks. It is the incredible skill of these craftsmen(probably mostly men) that makes me think that the original artist would not have allowed a mistake to stand. My guess is that he would have cut out a chunk encompassing the error and replaced it with a piece that was flawlessly carved.

From my point of view, as people deeply, deeply interested in this wonderful gift from the past, it would be a mistake to limit ourselves to discussing only the general meaning, historical origin and religious or moral significance of an image. Especially if we consider that in the context of these cards image is language. They were designed for a populace that, though often illiterate, was not unintelligent. A bright person, especially in high society, was frequently called a “wit,” and people made a game of verbal sparring. This being the case, is it not reasonable that the designers of cards used the device of visual double entendres to engage the imagination?

I just like to take a playful approach here which is what I believe the designers would have done. It was never my intention to get under anyone‘s skin, though I seem to have done so. Robert has been suspiciously silent ever since I kidded him about the Priestess/Papesse!

Also, I apologize if much of this was already covered on Aeclectic. I will make a point to try to find the discussion in their archives if, indeed, I have access to it. After I take a moment to respond to Prudence's post, I will try to avoid this topic. I say try because it is still possible that my fingers may get carried away and type before I think. Best regards. —Marcei

Robert has been busy entertaining guests for the past four days, so has just popped in to comment on things quickly, and focused on topics that don't take much concentration to express so that I can pop back out again and return to enjoying the precious time together.

I'd be very sad to think that people here felt that they didn't want to participate in a topic of discussion. We're a wonderful group of interesting, diverse people. We can't have a virtual beer and a bit of fun debate without someone leaving the table?

Hi Prudence,

I, too, thought we were being playful (see my most recent post), but I can't, in all honesty, abandon my observations about the US in general. There is, indeed, a great difference in temperament and outlook in areas of the US, and in large cities particularly on the east and west coast people have a much broader outlook. No doubt the cards could be sold openly there. In the middle of the country, however, including the southeast and southwest (not just small pockets) it is a different story. People have been known to make a big deal out of nothing. Have you forgotten that in 2002 at the behest of John Ashcroft, then Attorney General of the United States, $8,000 was spent for a curtain to cover the single exposed breast of the statue “The Spirit of Justice” which had stood in the Great Hall for more than 60 years? Unfortunately there are many of like mind. Just my observation. —Marcei

Don't worry Robert, I won't leave the table. It's just too much fun here!

If my previous reply sounded a little harsh and convoluted, I'll put it down to writing on-the-run and not checking for 'tone'...

It's an important discussion to have here - my comment about similar comments in other places is more to give acknowledgement whilst trying to recall where we had some similar discussion some months/years ago.

Perhaps it wasn't even on AT, but, if I think more clearly, due to my own comments in my pdfs to which Steve made similar detailed remarks in a now closed area on tarotbb.com (which was established around the same time as this very forum!).

What I personally consider important in terms of looking at the details include all the various discussions that have taken place - from the more playful to the references to various reflections. It's by all those, combined in communal discussions, that both insights and possible new routes of discovery open, and for which I am personally ever so grateful and enjoy.

...this does not, of course, prevent us from having differing views!

SteveM wrote:Intended 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."

La Verge de Jacob, the rod of Jacob*, as that of Moses and Aaron, was according to legend from a tree grown from a branch brought by adam from the garden of Eden; the same tree that would provide the wood of the cross for the crucifixion of Christ. It symbolises the generations from Adam to Christ of which there are 77**; the 77 generations from Adam to Christ are traditionally split into the 21 from Adam to Abraham and the 56 from Abraham to Christ.

The word 'Tarocchi' in Milanese Italian means 'tree', geneological tree (as per example above the tree of life from Adam to Christ), trunk. (As trunk, a log without a head, it was used figuratively to mean a dunce, a fool, a 'loggerhead'.)


SteveM
*Or Jacob's penis, he being the patriarch of the 12 tribes of Israel from among which generations the Messiah shall be born. In some medieval star maps Jacob is identified with the constellation Orion (which some have identified also with the iconography of the Fool), and the three distinctive stars of Orion that form a line is called the Verge de Jacob. Ergo it may be said, that it is the Fool's (Orion/Jacob) 'verge' that the bateleur holds. As well as being known as the verge of jacob Orion's belt is also called Jacob's Ladder. And the stone on which he laid when he dreamt of the ladder (the anointed stone, a prefigurement of Jesus, as is Jacob the Shepherd), was called bethel which is 'maison dieu' in archaic French. In kabbalistic tradition the constellation Orion has been identified with the hebrew letter alef, said to be constructed of a vau and two yuds (=6+10+10 = 26 = YHVH and the middle pillar or trunk of the tree of life - 1+6+9+10) or a penis (the vau of the letter alef) and two testes (the two yods of the letter alef), such as lies at the centre of the Noblet fool card. The plough of the ox that fertilises the earth. Orion is also the constellation of the castrated Osiris.
**78 counting God the Father.

(note: previously posted on AT and elsewhere).

robert wrote: Robert has been busy entertaining guests for the past four days, so has just popped in to comment on things quickly, and focused on topics that don't take much concentration to express so that I can pop back out again and return to enjoying the precious time together.

I'd be very sad to think that people here felt that they didn't want to participate in a topic of discussion. We're a wonderful group of interesting, diverse people. We can't have a virtual beer and a bit of fun debate without someone leaving the table?

First off, I am not feeling like myself and honestly I am not feeling very strong. Nothing is rolling off of this duck's back, so to speak.

I do enjoy fun debate but retreated from this one because it felt like one post after another was harshing me out, sounding to my ears a lot more like people who are fed up or frustrated with a topic rather than people who are/were enjoying it. I do not want to contribute to someone's annoyance by continuing in a vein that is taxing anyone's patience. At the same time I do not wish to be seen as someone with an obsessive bent for the depiction of genitals in historical tarot decks and I most definitely don't wish to be associated with phrases like "severed penis". (it's just so violent and pathological, two traits I hope not to embody) Questioning how I might be seen by my peers has me feeling very self conscious about my contributions.

If I am seeing harshness where there is none, then I am not in a position emotionally to participate in anything rigorous or rough, even when it's all meant to be playful.

Come back, Come back, Prudence!

We women have the ability to take a frank and good natured look at life, and find some humor there. Some folks just need to lighten up a bit. I loved your posts, and I need your support! Best, —Marcei

prudence wrote:First off, I am not feeling like myself and honestly I am not feeling very strong. Nothing is rolling off of this duck's back, so to speak.

I do enjoy fun debate but retreated from this one because it felt like one post after another was harshing me out, sounding to my ears a lot more like people who are fed up or frustrated with a topic rather than people who are/were enjoying it. I do not want to contribute to someone's annoyance by continuing in a vein that is taxing anyone's patience. At the same time I do not wish to be seen as someone with an obsessive bent for the depiction of genitals in historical tarot decks and I most definitely don't wish to be associated with phrases like "severed penis". (it's just so violent and pathological, two traits I hope not to embody) Questioning how I might be seen by my peers has me feeling very self conscious about my contributions.

If I am seeing harshness where there is none, then I am not in a position emotionally to participate in anything rigorous or rough, even when it's all meant to be playful.

I don't think you were being oversensitive prudence, I think your perceptions were spot on; I too feel the sense of frustration with a topic from others, the mockery, the sense of being somehow made out as obsessive about such associations in a derisive manner meant to make one defensive and self conscious, an attack on the person more than the ideas. It is a rhetorical rather than an honest device, but nonetheless, like yourself, i withdraw.

I'm sorry to see you withdraw from the conversation Steve; and Prudence, if you decide to also leave then my regret is doubled.

Steve, Are you leaving the conversation too? If so, why? Your contributions are very valuable here. —Marcei