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
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."
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?
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests