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
Re: Noblet’s batelleur’s Wand
61
Last edited by Marcei on 08 May 2009, 00:48, edited 2 times in total.