Noblet’s batelleur’s Wand

[EnriqueEnriquez]

I am sorry that this seems to be such a touchy thing for people

OK, given the topic you just set-up about a thousand jokes, but I will refrain myself.

[EUGIM]

Just for me,this batelevr penis or likewise you wanna,wand,is simply and only the chopped LE FOV penis done by the dog...

[prudence]

I am sorry that this seems to be such a touchy thing for people

Hi Marcei, I think you've really hit the nail on the head here, with that statement, this is a very sensitive area for some folks....very.

But seriously, you've got my attention now with the observation that many decks show a Bateleur with his "wand" hand backwards... you've mentioned the phrase back of the hand, which makes a lot of sense in this context, but I am wondering if it could possibly point to the wand hand being a "left" hand, and if that is in any way significant. I guess it depends on how one is looking at the hand, but for me I am seeing it as "he has two left hands", looking at the Vandenborre and the Noblet...I'd have to pull out a few others to see if they are all "left" handed....

[OnePotato]

....Nothing excepting what I originally said, that if the block was not intentionally (re)worked to show such but was the result of damage, perhaps Noblet was happy to let the damage go as a happy accident that brought out the implicit pun (and then perhaps added that urethral like slit that makes the appearance even stronger)....

Hi Steve.
Ok, I can go along with the happy accident that implies a known pun.
I just don't go along with the "intentional symbolic meaning" interpretation.

....Perhaps you could do one of your wonderful corrections (such as in the 1c date) to show how it would have looked prior to any damage/adaption?

I don't think I can make a believable restoration in this case, because the original may not have been "believable".

My best guess is that Noblet's artist was working from an earlier reference card image that had been printed from a broken block. When it came time to draw the hand and wand, he didn't know what to make of it, so he just copied it pretty much as it appeared, with missing fingers and wand. (Perhaps he recognized a phallic symbol, or perhaps he just saw it as nonsense.)

Further to this, we see that in Heri's case, the artist recognized the problem with the reference (or Noblet's interpretation of it,) and came up with his own unique solution, giving us the "little horn" that his bateleur holds.

As a general comment, I will point out that MANY artists, over many YEARS, have struggled with the depiction of the hand holding the wand. Some depict it realistically, others defy the laws of anatomy, or gravity, or both. Is it intentional, or just a repetitious mistake??

Here is Claude Burdel, 1751, in violation of both anatomy and gravity:

[Marcei]

Hi Enrique & Prudence,

You‘re both right—I meant topic, touchy topic! But, we're just having so much fun with this whole discussion that I hate to see it end.

Prudence, Two left hands! That‘s right! A brilliant observation on your part. I never thought of it that way. I just kept trying to understand what it might mean to have the hand turned around—whether it would mean backhanded as I mentioned, or whether it might signify extreme agility, and it certainly would be extreme because the fingers would be bending backwards. Your way makes much more sense. Good thinking.This is what I love about the Tarot — it makes you think! Marcei

[prudence]

I was not at all expecting there to be so much resistance to a bateleur's penis in the Unicorn Terrace. I am dismayed. It's just fanciful conjecture, a victimless crime surely?

About the hand, it seems like a little more effort would be needed to recreate the left hand on the wrong arm than what would occur with a repetitious mistake.

[OnePotato]

Not agreeing should not necessarily be seen as resistance.
I've simply offered a mundane technical explanation, for anyone interested.

By "repetitious mistake" I mean a line of artists copying a reference exactly as it was originally presented.
If the model version of the hand was poorly defined, and later misinterpreted as a left hand, then that copy faithfully duplicated by subsequent copyists, that would be a "repetitious mistake, intentionally done."

Or, perhaps the left/right switch, or any of these other rendering anomalies is an intentional play on "sleight of hand".

If you look at a number of Tarot de Marseille decks, done over many years, you will see any number of wands that do not sit in the hand, left hands on right, and other drawing anomalies. Sometimes a number of decks will show the same set of "anomalies".

The example I posted, Burdel 1751, has six fingers, and a wand that floats behind the hand.
While it is not a left/right switch, I think it is also somewhat interesting.

[jmd]

With regards to 'resistance', I would suggest that there is 'resistance' both ways: each one of us who looks at the card in the context of its historical setting appears to have some more or less likely 'evident' explanation for the way the card appears.

For myself, as I mentioned earlier, I suspect that the original was broken and that this forms the most important part of the resultant image even if, as already mentioned, it allowed for the 'pun' to manifest more easily.

Unlike the description of modern USA described above and its mores that seem ever so Victorianesque (at least with regards to the depiction of sexual organs - as in so many other ways it is, of course, ever so far more liberated), the period and times in which the Noblet was created and on which the deck was based (so also, therefore, a little earlier) did not appear to have such a focussed attention bordering on obsession that seems to at times be nowadays the case. If there was somewhat of an ambiguity, 'so what?' would more likely have been the response than viewing it as a deeply significant pun that may also have been used in various context in other situations.

It's a jump, I would suggest, to get from an intended Bateleur and his wand to an intended depiction of wand-as-penile, even though it was very likely also in popular consciousness then as it is now. As I mentioned before, and with the additional support of Steve's views presented above (and before on, if I recall, Aeclectic also), of course there is support for some linguistic connections – frankly, that is not surprising.

I suppose that what I'm mainly looking to is the image as given and why or how it got to be the way it is, and what was intended in the original. In that sense, I would suggest that the original was very likely damaged (hence, again, the missing part of the hand and the missing part of the wand), and with that damage in place, details may have emerged to bring the ambiguity to greater light.

To paraphrase something Enrique wrote earlier, if I ask what it was that was depicted by the 'conventional allegory' of the Bateleur, and also then look at the symbolic aspects of that allegory, I would suggest that we get closer to the 'source' of the intent... and in that sense would suggest a wand, not a penis. This has nothing to do with prudishness, as the depictions on the Pendu, Devil and Fou show.

[prudence]

With all due respect to Marcei, the "description of the US" is not one that sounds like my region of the country, and if a store was comfortable selling tarot decks at all, they'd not bat an eye at the "nudity" in this deck, it is cartoonish nudity after all, nothing pornographic, certainly nothing to take too seriously (something to keep in mind with regards to this penis debate). This is a vast country and its politics/social mores vary drastically from place to place (or state to state). I know there are some hot spots of religious vitriol, where intolerance is served up for dinner, but that is not the norm here. I do not worry at all about the Noblet being sold here openly, the decks most stores carry have so much more graphic nudity than this little deck.

But anyhoo, I feel my only recourse is to agree that the hand is a break and the wand is a wand and step away from what had been a fun debate. I am not actually seriously invested in this penis thing enough to continue engaging in serious arguments about it. Up until now my comments about this were never meant to be taken so seriously.

[Marcei]

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